Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[chala]

Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years?
Simply because it does matter this year.
Would glaciers keep melting?
Would temperatures in Europe exceed the 37c of last year?
Would losses of wheat fields due to self-ignition increase in Australia?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by chala

Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years?
Simply because it does matter this year.
Would glaciers keep melting?
Would temperatures in Europe exceed the 37c of last year?
Would losses of wheat fields due to self-ignition increase in Australia?

Well, that's certainly a new one!



Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

You continue to try and mislead for some reason, but it has apparently worked on L-E at least. You also neglected to mention in your comments (quoted in fryewe's post above) that the vast majority of the energy produced & consumed by the city of Calgary derives from fossil fuels. Instead, you made it sound as if they were using 100% renewables. This just hurts your own credibility and thus the argument you are trying to advance.

Here is L-E's Wiki quote from a few posts ago:

In 2001, the CTrain became the first public transit system in Canada to claim all of its electricity from emissions-free wind power generation. The electricity is generated by Enmax operating in the southern Alberta.[13][14] The trains are powered from the same power grid as before; however, an equivalent amount of electricity is produced at the southern wind farms and "dedicated" to the CTrain. Under Alberta's deregulated market for electricity, large consumers can contract to purchase their electricity from a specific vendor.

The city of Calgary can "claim" anything they want, or even "contract to purchase their electricity from a specific vendor," but the facts above state that the CTrain gets its electricity from the same power grid, and uses an amount of electricity that is "equivalent" to that which is produced by the wind turbines. As has been repeatedly pointed out, it is not possible for the electricity feeding the grid from the turbines to directly power the trains, or the city services, or the 35,000 homes as you have also claimed.

The fact that there is a significant but comparatively small percentage of renewables offsetting carbon emissions in Alberta is well understood, but you can express this without deceptively inflating their actual contribution.

It's almost always the left/progressive that's on the receiving end of accusations of "political correctness", but this mess is (besides some epic quote-mining) clearly the 'PC' of the anti-green orthodoxy.

Jack's reference from #897:

Our local light rail transit system uses wind power for its electricity.

Kenomac, with deep insight, opines

And what happens when the wind isn't blowing? I suppose everyone walks to work? Do you still believe in the tooth fairy?

And Stu with great restraint and equanimity adds

Typical greenie propaganda, distortions and lies.

Calgary's light rail transit system does not "use wind power for its electricity"!

... and you're off to the races.

Nobody, Jack included, said the LRT was off-grid. If the concept of buying 100% of the required LRT power from wind-generation is too tough for you, or offends your sensibilities around the word 'uses'... well the fault lies with the reader.

If you're going to quibble that hard, go all-in, ffs. That train isn't wind powered unless it sprouts some f#@king sails!

This anti-green PC is in keeping with the fainting and vapours over the term "ocean acidification". Nooooo it's neutralization. Nice gentle neutralization!

It's been informative in that you've all made it abundantly clear, for all your protestations of being personally responsible about resource use, that there's a very deep anti-green streak, politically-speaking and that anti-AGW is really just a part of that. Not faulting anyone if they genuinely feel this way, but it underscores that much, maybe most anti-AGW sentiment in the public is a political stance and not a science-based one.

You guys owe Jack an apology.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

That train isn't wind powered...

Well, I'm glad we finally got that cleared up.

[chala]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Well, that's certainly a new one!

Don’t you have an AI?

[Kenomac]

Let's try to steer the discussion back towards the original post.

My feeling, is that future technology will solve any and every problem that arises caused by the cooling or warming of the average temperature, food will continue to be produced in adequate amounts, and fast food connoisseurs will seamlessly make the switch over to sweet potato fries.

We will adapt.

Don't worry.... be happy.

I just made a new discovery this morning.... Coffee-mate tastes good on oatmeal... Not exactly a technological, earth changing, scientific breakthrough, but I'd run out of brown sugar... the adaptation was easy and painless.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

... My feeling, is that future technology will solve any and every problem that arises caused by the cooling or warming ...
We will adapt ...

The development of those technologies, and our adaptation require that we recognize, and are motivated to mitigate, those problems.
We have to understand the disease, in order to innovate and implement the cure.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

... Coffee-mate tastes good on oatmeal...

Improvise. Adapt. Overcome. Not quite as impressive as jerry-riggin' the boom as a mast after a dismasting, but it's right up there.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by GordMay

The development of those technologies, and our adaptation require that we recognize, and are motivated to mitigate, those problems.
We have to understand the disease, in order to innovate and implement the cure.

I simply dumped a spoonful of Coffee-mate onto my oatmeal.... situation mitigated, disease cured, problem solved.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

The development of those technologies, and our adaptation require that we recognize, and are motivated to mitigate, those problems.
We have to understand the disease, in order to innovate and implement the cure.

Very true in the broadest sense Gord, but also true that govts. often have to come up with problems before they can convince people to give them more money to find a fix. That's why a certain amount of skepticism that challenges the status quo is desirable & necessary. Figuring out when to challenge or when to accept often requires examining & questioning the motivations of the actors on all sides of an issue. Not sure why this admittedly messy, complex, confusing but ultimately indispensible process appears to be such a threat to some.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by chala

Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years?
Simply because it does matter this year.
Would glaciers keep melting?
Would temperatures in Europe exceed the 37c of last year?
Would losses of wheat fields due to self-ignition increase in Australia?

Now I don't want to start a debate on this but I couldn't find the wheat fields self ignition online via Google or yahoo I have seen grainery explosions and piles of cut grasses catch fire could you attach a link to the info it seems interesting and warrants study to mitigate it happening again

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It's almost always the left/progressive that's on the receiving end of accusations of "political correctness", but this mess is (besides some epic quote-mining) clearly the 'PC' of the anti-green orthodoxy.

Jack's reference from #897:


Kenomac, with deep insight, opines


And Stu with great restraint and equanimity adds


... and you're off to the races.

Nobody, Jack included, said the LRT was off-grid. If the concept of buying 100% of the required LRT power from wind-generation is too tough for you, or offends your sensibilities around the word 'uses'... well the fault lies with the reader.

If you're going to quibble that hard, go all-in, ffs. That train isn't wind powered unless it sprouts some f#@king sails!

This anti-green PC is in keeping with the fainting and vapours over the term "ocean acidification". Nooooo it's neutralization. Nice gentle neutralization!

It's been informative in that you've all made it abundantly clear, for all your protestations of being personally responsible about resource use, that there's a very deep anti-green streak, politically-speaking and that anti-AGW is really just a part of that. Not faulting anyone if they genuinely feel this way, but it underscores that much, maybe most anti-AGW sentiment in the public is a political stance and not a science-based one.

You guys owe Jack an apology.

If we could only all just think the exact same way and get along . . . .

Feeling persecuted by all this disagreeable debate & discussion?

[jackdale]

[QUOTE=Exile;2004830]Very true in the broadest sense Gord, but also true that govts. often have to come up with problems before they can convince people to give them more money to find a fix. /QUOTE]

That is not the purpose of the a carbon tax.

As I have pointed previously, free-enterprise advocates such as Garret Hardin and Milton Friedman understand that there is no capitalist mechanism to prevent despoiling commons. Both recommend a tax which will incentivize both the prevention of and solutions to using the atmpshere as a wste dump.

A carbon tax is simply a means of putting a cost on excess CO2. Any company that has waste products in a liquid or solid form has to pay to have it properly disposed. Are invisible gases exempt just because we cannot see them in the air?

A carbon tax is collected from fossil-fuel companies upon the first sale at the mine, wellhead or port of entry.

The money collected via this fee would be distributed to the public as a monthly “dividend” or “green check.” Distributing all of the revenue equitably to households will ensure that families can afford the energy they need during the transition to a clean energy future, and it should help win public support for a rising carbon fee.

There is no government revenue and no corporate profit.

There is just such a system in place in British Columbia.

"British Columbia has had a carbon tax since 2008. It isn’t large or onerous; for example, the tax on gasoline is 6.67 cents per litre, and on higher-carbon diesel it’s 7.67 cents. The tax, also covering coal, natural gas and other fuels, has had a big impact. Between 2008 and 2012, per capita consumption of the fuels subject to the carbon tax fell by more than 17 per cent in BC, while rising by 1.5 per cent in the rest of Canada, according to an analysis by Stewart Elgie of the University of Ottawa. Per capita greenhouse-gas emissions from sources subject to the BC carbon tax fell 10 per cent, while the rest of the country’s per capita emissions from the same sources were down 1.1 per cent. And even as BC’s path of carbon use was diverging from the rest of Canada, its economic performance was not. The best measure of economic growth – per capita gross domestic product – shows almost no difference between BC and the rest of Canada between 2008 and 2011. In fact, BC’s economic growth, even with a carbon tax, slightly outperformed the rest of the country.

What’s more, BC has used the carbon tax to reduce personal and business taxes. For middle-class and upper-middle income people, BC is now the province with the lowest income-tax burden – lower than Alberta.

In other words, BC has delivered big results, without taking radical steps. A tax on carbon nudged millions of British Columbians into making small decisions to figure out how to lower their carbon-tax burden. And all of those small steps have added up. There have been millions of tiny evolutions – not one giant revolution. The entire province didn’t give up cars or capitalism."

How to fight global warming without destroying the economy? Use a little Econ 101 - The Globe and Mail

[Kenomac]

[QUOTE=jackdale;2004875]

Originally Posted by Exile

Very true in the broadest sense Gord, but also true that govts. often have to come up with problems before they can convince people to give them more money to find a fix. /QUOTE]

Jackdale writes:

That is not the purpose of the a carbon tax.

As I have pointed previously, free-enterprise advocates such as Garret Hardin and Milton Friedman understand that there is no capitalist mechanism to prevent despoiling commons. Both recommend a tax which will incentivize both the prevention of and solutions to using the atmpshere as a wste dump.

A carbon tax is simply a means of putting a cost on excess CO2. Any company that has waste products in a liquid or solid form has to pay to have it properly disposed. Are invisible gases exempt just because we cannot see them in the air?

A carbon tax is collected from fossil-fuel companies upon the first sale at the mine, wellhead or port of entry.

The money collected via this fee would be distributed to the public as a monthly “dividend” or “green check.” Distributing all of the revenue equitably to households will ensure that families can afford the energy they need during the transition to a clean energy future, and it should help win public support for a rising carbon fee.

There is no government revenue and no corporate profit.

There is just such a system in place in British Columbia.

"British Columbia has had a carbon tax since 2008. It isn’t large or onerous; for example, the tax on gasoline is 6.67 cents per litre, and on higher-carbon diesel it’s 7.67 cents. The tax, also covering coal, natural gas and other fuels, has had a big impact. Between 2008 and 2012, per capita consumption of the fuels subject to the carbon tax fell by more than 17 per cent in BC, while rising by 1.5 per cent in the rest of Canada, according to an analysis by Stewart Elgie of the University of Ottawa. Per capita greenhouse-gas emissions from sources subject to the BC carbon tax fell 10 per cent, while the rest of the country’s per capita emissions from the same sources were down 1.1 per cent. And even as BC’s path of carbon use was diverging from the rest of Canada, its economic performance was not. The best measure of economic growth – per capita gross domestic product – shows almost no difference between BC and the rest of Canada between 2008 and 2011. In fact, BC’s economic growth, even with a carbon tax, slightly outperformed the rest of the country.

What’s more, BC has used the carbon tax to reduce personal and business taxes. For middle-class and upper-middle income people, BC is now the province with the lowest income-tax burden – lower than Alberta.

In other words, BC has delivered big results, without taking radical steps. A tax on carbon nudged millions of British Columbians into making small decisions to figure out how to lower their carbon-tax burden. And all of those small steps have added up. There have been millions of tiny evolutions – not one giant revolution. The entire province didn’t give up cars or capitalism."

How to fight global warming without destroying the economy? Use a little Econ 101 - The Globe and Mail

In other words.... A socialist redistribution of wealth tax on the wealthy and business.

Now, let's jump ahead 20-100 years and speculate as to what the future looks like.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Exile

... a certain amount of skepticism that challenges the status quo is desirable & necessary...

Indeed.