Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Exile:
"So rather than depend on politicians’ high ideals to drive change, it’s a safer bet to rely on businesses’ self interest: in other words, the bottom line."

Originally Posted by jackdale

Go back and read the post on Garret Hardin and Milton Friedman.

Hey, this was from YOUR link to the article about the failed Google research project into the economic viability of replacing fossil fuels with renewables. I was simply quoting the opinion of the two researchers, one which I also happen to think is more realistic & practical than Hardin & Friedman. But what does a company like Google know when it comes to developing new technologies?

[SV THIRD DAY]

What tax breaks for Oil and Gas are you talking about.....that's one of the great myths out there....

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Have boat and passport will travel. And yes I do remember something about that kinda funny now days

You will need a PCOC after 45 days.

[Exile]

What happened to ##1, 2 & 3? I kinda liked those too.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

( heh. really bugs Mr K that I haven't dropped my drawers in his little game. . Good.)

Sorry to have to ask again, but what are you talking about??

#4 is sooooo close. Let's nudge it over the line:

Effective mitigation of current and looming ecological problems, including land, air and water pollution, plastics in the environment, and AGW, will require broad and coordinated action.

Some industries feel that such actions will negatively affect their future profitability. The most visible example is the fossil-fuel sectors who are in the spotlight when it comes to AGW. Their response has included efforts to dispute or downplay the scientific findings around AGW and its anticipated effects. The most effective strategy to date is to partner with like-minded political organizations to create the impression that there are issues with the quality of the science done or the extent of agreement with it. In this they have been quite successful, and much of the public is under the false impression that AGW is not yet a significant issue, even as their leaders start to consider action.

A bit wordy, sorry, but I know you're interested in accuracy.

Yeah, we've heard this sorta thing a lot before. It's all a big conspiracy. And no, fossil fuels are not a nonprofit industry. So yes, they do have legal, financial & fiduciary duties to their shareholders, to say nothing of their employees, to turn a profit. And like it or not, since they are in the business of producing ENERGY, they will ultimately be the ones probably bringing us alternative, renewable energies as well, along with new technologies for carbon extraction and the like. Oh, and since you have opted not to install solar panels, drive an electric car to work to make your living, or otherwise render yourself anything than totally dependent on fossil fuels for your existence, you may want to consider the reality of how the world works now before pipe dreaming about your personal version of a fantasy future.

Economics are important [you're learning], and tangible benefits make any change less painful. [No, they incentivize basic human behavior] One step is to stop subsidizing bad behaviour. [Very basic but true] If individuals and businesses are required to pay closer to the true life-cycle cost of fossil fuel use [huh?], behaviours change. [Yeah, it's called economic recession, lower standards of living, more poverty] Western Europe is a good example [of stagnation].

It's a net benefit to encourage and support the development of sustainable energy technologies, as well as more responsible use of any energy. We are already seeing improvement coming out of early support for alternatives: cost per watt of solar is dropping, wind generator technology is maturing, and new ideas are approaching feasibility.

But It sounds like the cost per watt of solar has not yet dropped low enough for you, nor are all those new ideas approaching feasibility quite feasible enough for you. C'mon, with all your preachy enthusiasm, not one stinkin' cheap-ass, no-name, Chinese panel to throw up on your roof?

At the moment, fuel prices are absurdly low as oil overproduction is being wielded as a political weapon, and because of economic weaknesses globally. Unless this economic weakness is a permanent feature, oil prices will eventually rebound, providing a stronger incentive for alternatives.

Oil over-production wielded as a "political weapon?" By who & against whom? I thought you liked economic weakness because it reduces CO2 emissions, to say nothing of human suffering. Besides, you could think of the currently low price of heating your home & fueling your car as a "subsidy" that will help you buy your first solar panel. Then when oil prices eventually rebound (which they will), you'll have your stronger incentive to be happy that your new solar panel is offsetting some of your higher oil & gas costs, along with some CO2 emissions. Or, I suppose you could do nothing about your total reliance on fossil fuels and just continue to be preachy.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You will need a PCOC after 45 days.

Nope they accept my boaters license issued by Washington

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

What tax breaks for Oil and Gas are you talking about.....that's one of the great myths out there....

I'd appreciate it if L-E could enlighten us a bit more on this one too.

[Simonsays]

i know you enjoy a good chuckle, Exile: Crickhowell: 'Offshore' Welsh town unites in its anger at Britain's corporate tax avoiders | Home News | News | The Independent

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Exile

I'd appreciate it if L-E could enlighten us a bit more on this one too.

From the IMF, a group not generally associated with tree-hugging extremism.

For 2015 the economic cost of energy subsidies worldwide will amount to US$5.3 trillion, or US$10 million every minute.[6] This is not to be confused with actual amount of subsidies which are projected to amount to around US$333 billion for 2015.[7]

You can read the entire paper here,

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp15105.pdf

but, if you want to understand it, expect to spend some time with it.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by XXXIII

Ppm is a measure of concentration. The composition of co2 has changed 100 parts per million in the atmosphere, as a whole. This compositional change of the atmosphere is an increase of 1/100th of 1%!
This is the math
100ppm = 100/1,000,000 = .0001 = .01% = 1/100th of 1%

If the concentration of co2 increased 33%, we would all be dead

You always hear about co2 in terms of ppm, maybe this is dangerous, but thinking about it in term of percent%, it seems like a neligable increase to the co2 that is already there.

Co2 has almost reached its thermal absorption maximum anyway. Ocean Acidification I have heard is a issue, I wonder if that's a complete hoax also?

Don't get me wrong, we are totally polluting the planet, I don't think co2 is the problem.

Well the concentration did increase 33% (more like 40% now) and it seems we're still alive, so what happened? (Actually, CO2 at 15% total atmospheric content is considered lethal.) But we'll come back to that...

While the concentration of CO2 may seem 'negligible' at 280PPM and a 40 percent increase to 400 PPM may also seem 'negligible', once again it must be reminded that without this 'negligible' gas, every tree, blade of grass, spec of algae, drop of oil or lump of coal, and yes, indirectly even you and I, wouldn't exist. Pretty good for a 'negligible' gas that is only .04%, by volume, of the atmosphere, I'd say. Kinda puts 'little things come in small packages' in a different light...

Can you explain what you mean by 'Co2 has almost reached its thermal absorption maximum anyway.' I can find no reference to this anywhere.
And if you think global warming is a hoax, well then certainly ocean acidification is too...

You know we're 'totally polluting the planet' how, exactly?

To me, this post frames the whole mess in one sentence.

"I don't think co2 is the problem."

The corollary being, I don't understand, so the proposer (or the idea) is stupid, or wrong, or a conspiracy, you name it; the important thing is to not accept the premise because it doesn't fit an acceptable mode of thinking. Generally speaking, it's a form of confirmation bias.

So, pardon me, but when it comes to believing someone who doesn't recognize the difference between the percentage increase of an existing level of a constituent in a mixture and the percentage concentration of a constituent in a mixture, 'I don't think it's a problem' doesn't cut it.

I'll stick with the scientists whose careers are on the line, and the natural checks and balances that keep them honest. Science doesn't tolerate bias well, that nasty reality always shows up at inopportune times...

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

And no, fossil fuels are not a nonprofit industry. So yes, they do have legal, financial & fiduciary duties to their shareholders, to say nothing of their employees, to turn a profit.

It's no longer in our best interests to subsidize fossil-fuel production and consumption. The current market glut indicates that supply is not an issue.

Originally Posted by Exile

And like it or not, since they are in the business of producing ENERGY, they will ultimately be the ones probably bringing us alternative, renewable energies as well, along with new technologies for carbon extraction and the like.

Now who's farting rainbows? Although a few are diversifying.

Oh, and since you have opted not to install solar panels, drive an electric car to work to make your living, or otherwise render yourself anything than totally dependent on fossil fuels for your existence, you may want to consider the reality of how the world works now before pipe dreaming about your personal version of a fantasy future.

you could think of the currently low price of heating your home & fueling your car as a "subsidy" that will help you buy your first solar panel. Then when oil prices eventually rebound (which they will), you'll have your stronger incentive to be happy that your new solar panel is offsetting some of your higher oil & gas costs, along with some CO2 emissions. Or, I suppose you could do nothing about your total reliance on fossil fuels and just continue to be preachy.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Don't try to shift the responsibility for the death of those poor horses. Their demise is a result of your unwillingness to directly address the questions that point out your hypocrisy. I fear the whole herd is headed for the slaughterhouse.

[Kenomac]

hypocrite

[hip-uh-krit]

Spell Syllables

Synonyms
Examples
Word Origin

noun


1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.


2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Exile:

I'd appreciate it if L-E could enlighten us a bit more on this one too.

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

From the IMF, a group not generally associated with tree-hugging extremism.

For 2015 the economic cost of energy subsidies worldwide will amount to US$5.3 trillion, or US$10 million every minute.[6] This is not to be confused with actual amount of subsidies which are projected to amount to around US$333 billion for 2015.[7]

You can read the entire paper here,

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp15105.pdf

but, if you want to understand it, expect to spend some time with it.

I don't think the issue of eliminating subsidies for the fossil fuel industry is necessarily a tree-hugging matter. As only a casual review of the IMF report reveals, it's a highly complex area with often arcane definitions of what various subsidies actually are, and an involved system of economic incentives & disincentives to deal with the many different interests affected by the extraction, production & distribution of fossil fuels. To the extent some of these subsidies are merely a form of corporate welfare (like ethanol is to Iowa farmers), then I agree with L-E that they should be eliminated, and there seems to be growing political consensus for that. But some of the so-called "subsidies" & "tax breaks" people like to complain about are merely deductions for costs, expenses & depreciation applicable to all businesses, with the capital-intensive oil industry perhaps availing themselves more of them due to their business model.

But instead the issue has become more of another overly simplistic talking point by many who wish to make themselves feel good by simply repeating the party line. Since L-E is always spouting off about this, maybe he'll take the time that is obviously needed to research this and tell us which subsidies & tax breaks should be eliminated.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Don't try to shift the responsibility for the death of those poor horses. Their demise is a result of your unwillingness to directly address the questions that point out your hypocrisy. I fear the whole herd is headed for the slaughterhouse.

Originally Posted by Kenomac

hypocrite

[hip-uh-krit]

Spell Syllables

Synonyms
Examples
Word Origin

noun


1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.


2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

heh. Little rules for little minds. You don't know how I live, what I do in concert with my beliefs... and I like it that way. My life isn't your football.

This is a forum; if my opinions and arguments aren't persuasive, no amount of solar panels on my roof nor windmills in my yard are going to make them more effective.

Having solar panels doesn't make one's opinions on AGW or "Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years" any more credible.

It's not me beating dead horses.

[sailorboy1]

I wonder if there is a forum for climate change? I guess I could google it, but why?