COP26 - the Glasgow Climate Summit

[Bycrick]

Lake Effect. You just showed your real agenda. "It isn’t what we can get people to do voluntarily." It’s obviously about what you and your friends can force everybody into doing. You don’t need no stinkin' voters to resist your agenda. Forget science, except as you think it justifies your position. Forget voting if it doesn’t get the results you want. If we can’t get them to do it voluntarily, we will just use force. That sounds like a very good reason to oppose you.

Jackdale. I didn’t take it personally. I merely point out that if you want to pretend to be an activist, you should be cutting your own consumption, and increasing your carbon taxes and building new Green power plants with your money in Alberta, before you spend time telling other people what they ought to do. Something about throwing stones.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Lake Effect. You just showed your real agenda. "It isn’t what we can get people to do voluntarily." It’s obviously about what you and your friends can force everybody into doing. You don’t need no stinkin' voters to resist your agenda. Forget science, except as you think it justifies your position. Forget voting if it doesn’t get the results you want. If we can’t get them to do it voluntarily, we will just use force. That sounds like a very good reason to oppose you.

So nice to hear all the same old crap from a newer voice.

Recycling of plastics was to be a significant voluntary program, and public compliance has generally been good. But the program's a fail because manufacturers haven't been using easily-recycled plastics in packaging, and the required back-end recycling plants and a market for recycled plastics haven't materialized. There will be no meaningful changes without a coordinated structural change.

[Bycrick]

Lake Effect — If it isn’t "voluntary," what’s left?

[Bycrick]

You don’t know when to stop digging.

Recycling hasn’t worked because a significant amount of plastics simply aren’t recyclable economically. They’re either dirty, or too mixed to be of any use. Most places aren’t going to spend tens of millions of dollars trying to recycle plastics for which there’s no economic market. As you point out, and then want to ignore, neither the necessary plants, nor the market for their product has materialized, even after 40 years of zealots talking about recycling. So your answer is " coordinated structural change" which, if it isn’t voluntary is government dictates, demands and coercion. Sorry, my idea of a dream world isn’t one where the government forces me to do things that they can’t get voted in. .

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Lake Effect — If it isn’t "voluntary," what’s left?

The key word is individual, not voluntary. Individual action is not going to fix CC. Voting for a government that promises to address pressing problems is a voluntary act, no?

This thread is now The Bycrick Show; you haven't said anything that hasn't been claimed before by detractors, "skeptics", and deniers. It hasn't improved with age.

[Bycrick]

If you can get people to vote for your projects, that’s the system. Whether I , personally, like the results will be besides the point. That’s voluntary. And if you can’t get people to vote your way, in spite of all the tub thumping, then I’m not enthralled with the idea of forcing or coercing them in the name of saving the world. If that makes me a "denier," or "heretic," or "skeptic," them I’m proud to shoulder that burden.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Interesting commentary on Connelly et al. Willie Soon is a co-author.



https://www.dailykos.com/stories/202...Climate-Change

Quoting a blog discrediting a peer reviewed paper. Watts up with that?

[AKA-None]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

AKA-None. Of course any change in long-term climate will have an effect on weather. That will affect my sailing plans as well as my picnic plans for 2050. Can you suggest where I can find the information to adjust my planning? Or maybe just give the the forecast for next month. By the way, I like your epigram. Sort of like Einstein’s alleged quip that if you can’t explain something to a six-year-old, you don’t know the subject.

I’m an analyst not a climatologist I don’t believe in reading sites that only support my beliefs but neither do I give a lot of credence to non experts when I need an expert view
Eg if I need an opinion for surgery I don’t go to my mechanic and ask what he googled. Just ask Steve Jobs how well that worked out for him

So nope no opinion on next month’s weather except historically November has typically been cooler than October based on my experience where I live

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Ask them if they want $10/gallon gas or heating oil, of $1/kwh electricity and a doubling of food costs because of more expensive fertilizer, increased transportation costs, and the reduction of plastic packaging increasing shipping losses. They’ll probably say "No."

That is true, I would say "No" because gas/heating oil should be $30 a gallon. No problem paying a bit more for food etc to cover the costs.

Everybody loves the idea of people cutting back, as long as they don’t have to do it.

^ demonstrably false nonsense statement.

Originally Posted by jackdale

If you do not wish to pay a carbon tax. I will pay it for you; on the condition that you confine all of your fossil fuel emissions to your home and vehicles.

What does that mean? So secondary emissions are not allowed, only home and vehicle? You can drive but cannot buy food in a grocery store?

Meanwhile I will willingly pay mine.

Do you really? It cost at least $1200 per ton to capture and bury co2 in oil form which is what is actually required to determine the true cost. This is actually a low figure as all of the energy must be renewable using only renewables to install all of it etc. How much carbon tax do you really pay and does it cover all secondary an indirect sources?

So fuel such as diesel would be about $30 per gallon. It may be true that vegetable oil is currently cheaper, but consider they are cheating by degrading the land as well as using fossil fuels to produce it.

Emit less CO2, pay less tax. Not a hard concept.

Sure, would be great if the tax actually covered the cost. Most carbon tax schemes are nominal figures and only about 2-5% of the needed value. Even in sweden which has the highest tax of any country it is only about 1/10th of the true cost.

So once we fix the carbon tax at the correct value (so that co2 levels do not increase anymore each year) then where does the carbon tax money go? It goes to capturing co2 from the air and converting it to fuel again, in the same amount. Other systems are just an excuse. A real carbon tax covers to cost in a way meaning no more extraction of oil or fossil fuels is performed anymore. Every existing or proposed "tax" does not do this and therefore insufficient.

[GordMay]

Beyond Oil and Gas

The Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance [BOGA], headed by Denmark and Costa Rica, will bring together countries, and subnational entities, willing to set an end date for fossil fuel extraction. The list of those signing on will be released in Glasgow, Scotland, during the COP26 conference, starting there, next week.

Denmark announced, last year, it would stop issuing new licenses for oil and gas exploration, as part of a wider plan to phase out extraction by 2050. Denmark has been the largest oil producer, in the European Union, since the United Kingdom left the bloc in 2020.

BOGA ➥ https://www.beyondoilandgasalliance.com/

More about ➥ https://350.org/a-new-hope-launch-of...-gas-alliance/

In September, the Finance Minister of Iraq, one of the founding members of OPEC, called on fellow oil producers to move away from fossil fuel dependency and into renewable energy.
➥ https://www.theguardian.com/environm...newable-energy

[lestersails]

Am always amused by those infatuated with the 'free market' for fossil fuel and single-use plastics. The only way these products are affordable is if you massively subsidize them. Subsidize their extraction, refinement, distribution, and disposal. The true costs are always hidden and these industries are entirely based on gaming the system to maintain the subsidies and hidden costs. How much would a gallon of fuel cost if the drillers and refiners actually had to mitigate the damage they cause? How much would it cost if they had to recapture the carbon? How much would that single use plastic packaging cost if the manufacturer actually had to effectively deal with the waste?
We will always need fossil fuels and plastics - we only need to remove the underlying market distortions that falsely make them appear to be cheap enough to prolifically waste them. If that happens, then freedom will reign - the market will efficiently allocate their use.
And I agree that democratic processes should enable these changes. For that to happen, a key ingredient is to get people to stop lying, denying, distracting, and dissembling. There is nothing new about this - it is the old tragedy of the commons. The people currently exploiting the common good will say and do anything in order to keep exploiting it. It is expected and makes sense for oil companies and plastics manufacturers to do this, but what really puzzles me are people who aren't on their payroll doing their bidding for them. Irrespective of that, they are all finally getting called to account for this and they are hopping mad and raging. More than a bit of this rage in this forum!

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Taxes of any kind almost always effect the poor people rather than the rich.
...
And the minute you start saying "We’ll just give subsides/allowances/credits to the poor, then it just acts as a more-or-less income transfer mechanism.

You say that first sentence and then rant about progressively structured tax rebates? C'mon brother, try not to contradict yourself in the same paragraph!

[Bycrick]

Actually, Lestersails is right on the money in his problem description. If you want to get a belly full of market distortions read a book called The Story of a T-shirt. Where the rubber meets the road is getting people to actually vote to change all the rules when all they can see is more expensive gas, food, heating, etc. Where I depart from the "environmentalists" is when they start talking about "if we can’t get people to willing do what we want, we will just find a way to force the issue." And I particularly dislike people who are sitting in their big house, driving a big car, in a place where 80% of their electricity comes from fossil fuels, spending their time telling me what I should do to save the planet.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

And I particularly dislike people who are sitting in their big house, driving a big car, in a place where 80% of their electricity comes from fossil fuels, spending their time telling me what I should do to save the planet.

Since my house is getting >80% of its energy from solar and I only put gas in my plug in hybrid every couple months, then you don't particularly dislike me spending my time telling you what you should do to save the planet?
(Sorry, could not resist, it was a cheap shot, but it was practically an invitation.)

[Bycrick]

Nah — it wasn’t a cheap shot. Just a returned serve. It’s boring to have to write posts that sound like legal briefs or grant proposals.