Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-01-2019, 10:26 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,591

Are climate-change activists not extreme enough?


We have been warned repeatedly that the consequences of climate change (say, an increase of 2-3 degrees in Celsius) will be utterly catastrophic, and yet the vast majority of climate-change activists do little more than tweet, post on social media, do some half-hearted lobbying of politicians and maybe film some documentaries. This seems to be a "war effort" that is completely disproportionate in relation to the actual stake of the war - it would be like going into World War II with a few placards, demonstration rallies, and a few thousand troops. It doesn't seem to reach even 5% of the effort needed to make a meaningful change in the climate trend.


Not to make this an abortion thread (really, not) but this seems akin to many pro-lifers. Many pro-lifers will claim that abortion is akin to the Holocaust (and perhaps even intellectually believe it,) but their actions taken to stop abortion are disproportionately tiny in relation to the magnitude of the abortion situation (as they describe it.) Likewise, it appears that many climate-change activists intellectually believe that global warming, if left largely unchecked, will lead to calamitous damage to the planet and humanity, yet their actions are also...........sleepwalking towards the fate that awaits.


So, if this is so.....why? Is it a case of "the mind believes it but the heart does not feel it?" And what kind of intensity should the climate-change activists actually be exhibiting, in order to truly stop and reverse the global warming?
  #2  
Old 06-01-2019, 10:46 AM
FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,675
Extreme actions are likely illegal and will probably turn more people against the cause. Imagine if a small group of people blew up a power plant that runs on coal or natural gas. All they would accomplish is pissing a lot of people off, probably turning many against their cause. I think the only thing the extreme environmentalists could do that would be productive and that they aren’t already doing would be to embrace nuclear power in addition to wind and solar. On a more individual level I suppose people could get degrees in fields like chemistry, engineering, and physics to help the solar and wind industry progress a little more quickly. I’m not sure what else could be done that wouldn’t be counter productive.
  #3  
Old 06-01-2019, 02:19 PM
naita is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 6,524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
So, if this is so.....why?
Because that is how humans interact with each other. Even when championing important causes, we balance breaking the rules with upholding a functioning society.

Why didn't abolitionists assassinate slave holders if slavery is so bad?
  #4  
Old 06-01-2019, 02:56 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,946
Because climate change can only be solved through public policy and technological innovation.

If my hippie neighbor decides to lower his carbon footprint, I say, "sweet, more for me."

If I were an anti-abortionist, and I committed an act that drove an abortion provider out of town, even temporarily, then that is "babies saved". Schindler didn't prevent the holocaust, he just saved a handful (big handful, but small in context), but he is lauded as a hero.

If I were an environmentalist, and I commit an act that shuts down the coal plant, then that just means that the coal plant down the way has to pollute more to keep up with it, not to mention the environmental damage that would be caused by the damaged coal plant. What act could an environmentalist do to do save an equivalent "handful" of the environment?

If I choose to use less gas, that will not have any discernible effect on the amount of gas used.

If gas goes to $8 a gallon, then less gas will be used.
  #5  
Old 06-01-2019, 10:44 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
... And what kind of intensity should the climate-change activists actually be exhibiting, in order to truly stop and reverse the global warming?
I think this guy has the right idea and wish to subscribe to his newsletter.
  #6  
Old 06-01-2019, 10:57 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
We have been warned repeatedly that the consequences of climate change (say, an increase of 2-3 degrees in Celsius) will be utterly catastrophic, and yet the vast majority of climate-change activists do little more than tweet, post on social media, do some half-hearted lobbying of politicians and maybe film some documentaries. This seems to be a "war effort" that is completely disproportionate in relation to the actual stake of the war - it would be like going into World War II with a few placards, demonstration rallies, and a few thousand troops. It doesn't seem to reach even 5% of the effort needed to make a meaningful change in the climate trend.


Not to make this an abortion thread (really, not) but this seems akin to many pro-lifers. Many pro-lifers will claim that abortion is akin to the Holocaust (and perhaps even intellectually believe it,) but their actions taken to stop abortion are disproportionately tiny in relation to the magnitude of the abortion situation (as they describe it.) Likewise, it appears that many climate-change activists intellectually believe that global warming, if left largely unchecked, will lead to calamitous damage to the planet and humanity, yet their actions are also...........sleepwalking towards the fate that awaits.


So, if this is so.....why? Is it a case of "the mind believes it but the heart does not feel it?" And what kind of intensity should the climate-change activists actually be exhibiting, in order to truly stop and reverse the global warming?
What would you suggest they do that they aren't doing already? At this stage, a large percentage of the population...the majority I'd speculate...don't see or really understand the threat. Humans aren't really good at these sorts of nebulous, longer term threats that they can't really see directly. To really understand climate change you have to understand the data and the models...and, actually, it's not that easy or intuitive. Oh, I think a lot of people accept that climate change is happening, but they don't really grasp it or all the implications.

Then you have the fact that our entire civilization is built around fossil fuels. It's what has allowed said civilization. At this point, it's not possible, using just the tools we have available today, to just stop using the stuff. Certainly not in the current political climate, and not without stuff like nuclear, which is another issue itself. Wind and solar, along with hydro, geothermal and the other renewable or green energy options can't do it, and won't be able to tomorrow regardless of how fervent the faithful are or how radical they want to get. People, when push comes to shove, don't want to give up their cars, or AC in their houses, or all the other things that fossil fuels make possible. So, say you advocate your radical climate change warriors blowing up coal plants. Aside from the fact that this would paint them as basically terrorists (of the eco variety), they wouldn't exactly engender sympathy OR a positive response from the public. So, it would hurt the cause more than it helped.

I've thought about this from the perspective of nuclear energy quite a lot. In a rational world, environmentalists should be pushing, hell screaming for nuclear. And some are. But not enough to make a difference in shifting the publics view such that we are pushing not to build maybe one in a half decade, but to build 60 in a decade, with another 60 to follow those up. Or, on perhaps a less controversial topic, making realistic plans to upgrade our grid which, admittedly, is going to cost a fuck ton of money. But these things are politically hard to accomplish when half the population, roughly, is being told by their political leadership that climate change isn't real. And at least part of the other are pretty obviously using climate change to push through their socialist type pet projects that have nothing to do with climate change. It's easier to sop the public with solar and wind projects or give rebates and tax breaks to people putting those in than to tackle the really hard political tasks. So, the smart environmentalists are doing what they actually can...a campaign to shift public opinion over time and to lay the groundwork to do the big things that will be needed down the road. Sadly, it's taking longer than they thought...
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #7  
Old 06-01-2019, 10:59 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 211
The argument is valid for abortion, because the goal of dissuading people from becoming abortionists could be accomplished in a relatively small number of targeted violent acts. I don’t think it’s valid for climate change because the problem is so large, and we all contribute to climate change in one way or another.
  #8  
Old 06-01-2019, 11:06 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
The argument is valid for abortion, because the goal of dissuading people from becoming abortionists could be accomplished in a relatively small number of targeted violent acts. I don’t think it’s valid for climate change because the problem is so large, and we all contribute to climate change in one way or another.
There have already been "a relatively small number of targeted violent acts". Those don't seem to have made much of a dent in the problem. Why do you think a few more would succeed where the previous ones have not?
  #9  
Old 06-01-2019, 11:35 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
There have already been "a relatively small number of targeted violent acts". Those don't seem to have made much of a dent in the problem. Why do you think a few more would succeed where the previous ones have not?
Hmm, maybe I shouldn’t have brought it up. We’re edging into hijack territory. I might address it in the Georgia thread if that’s ok.
  #10  
Old 06-01-2019, 11:39 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Hmm, maybe I shouldn’t have brought it up. We’re edging into hijack territory. I might address it in the Georgia thread if that’s ok.
That'd be fine with me.
  #11  
Old 06-01-2019, 11:46 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 80,966
One individual can try to do something for the environment. But every time you try, those damn Avengers show up and ruin everything.




Okay, a serious answer. The environment is a big problem and the only way it will be addressed is through significant changes by the majority of people. No small group would be able to make the necessary changes and even if they did, those changes would be overturned unless the majority agreed with them.

So the solutions to environmental problems lie in educating people and changing the way we live. Trying to take extremist actions ahead of public support is just going to alienate people and push the real solution further away.
  #12  
Old 06-02-2019, 12:20 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,878
After many years of looking at the issue I have to say what I realized in previous discussions, the everlasting propaganda against solutions and the pressure to researchers to report the problem in the most conservative way has led to what amounts to a huge error, as in not sounding as worried as the situation warrants it.

Threats and other kinds of pressure (Scientist X is an alarmist!) have led many researchers to concentrate on more optimistic scenarios, and I do think that most researchers also counted on the past understanding seen by governments that did the proper thing when CFCs, acid rain, phosphates from detergents, etc, were singled out as a problem. Just a few years back one could see many regulations and things like cap and trade used successfully to deal with issues like that.

The big mistake there is that these are not the past Republicans that still appreciate science, and powerful industries financed the demonization of tools like cap-and-trade in American politics. In the past most researchers expected industry and government to follow the advise of science. And I do think that most do still expect that to be the case among many scientists, but I'm not as optimist as them in regards to thinking that the current government could be reason with.

We really need to understand that the weakest link is the current leadership in the Republican party and we should remove those rascals out with the ballot box.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 06-02-2019 at 12:21 AM.
  #13  
Old 06-02-2019, 01:28 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Because climate change can only be solved through public policy and technological innovation.

If my hippie neighbor decides to lower his carbon footprint, I say, "sweet, more for me."
Yes. Individual action might have a small effect at the margins, but the effect would be to marginally lower the price of carbon fuels and marginally increase the consumption of others. Chinese coal consumption has fallen slightly in recent years; will that trend continue? I don't know, but the U.S. needs to get its own house in order before putting pressure on China.

As, XT points out, rally around nuclear power might be the best way to break our dependence on carbon fuels. But in fact the anti-carbon activists are often also anti-nuclear.

Solution must be political. Let's hope Jay Inslee has a big effect on the upcoming debates.
  #14  
Old 06-02-2019, 12:56 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,946
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Yes. Individual action might have a small effect at the margins, but the effect would be to marginally lower the price of carbon fuels and marginally increase the consumption of others. Chinese coal consumption has fallen slightly in recent years; will that trend continue? I don't know, but the U.S. needs to get its own house in order before putting pressure on China.
Agreed. Though many will complain about China and say that they are the reason that we don't have to do anything.

I've never quite understood that logic. Especially as China *is* working on the problem more seriously than we are right now.

Quote:
As, XT points out, rally around nuclear power might be the best way to break our dependence on carbon fuels. But in fact the anti-carbon activists are often also anti-nuclear.
Absolutely. Nukes do need to be regulated carefully. They can pose quite the problem if people aren't doing them right.

But I do have confidence in our ability to do so.

Personally I agree with the sentiment that many environmentalists don't want nukes because then that would mean more power which would mean more people, and they see people as the enemy of the environment. Or something, I've never quite grokked the zero population growth argument.

Fusion is *just* 50 years away, but until then, rolling out nuclear power is the only way for us to keep our standard of living without messing things up worse.

Quote:
Solution must be political. Let's hope Jay Inslee has a big effect on the upcoming debates.
There are two ways to address climate change. The first is to reduce the number of people and/or their standard of living, this is something that society in general will never do voluntarily. Introducing carbon taxes will reduce standard of living, as would a GHG tax on cow burps. We can impose them, we have done similar things in the past, but they will be fought against by those who do not want to lower their standard of living.

The second is with technology. I don't want to give up driving, but switching to a more fuel efficient or electric car is not going to negatively impact my standard of living. I don't want to give up having my lights on, and my AC blasting in the summer, but getting my power from the splitting (or combining) of an atom shouldn't bother me.

We need a bit of both, to be honest, but I'd rather concentrate on the latter than the former.
  #15  
Old 06-02-2019, 05:19 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... I don't want to give up driving, but switching to a more fuel efficient or electric car is not going to negatively impact my standard of living. I don't want to give up having my lights on, and my AC blasting in the summer, but getting my power from the splitting (or combining) of an atom shouldn't bother me.

We need a bit of both, to be honest, but I'd rather concentrate on the latter than the former.
Sure. But carbon tax is the perfect way to achieve your desired result!! Just the right impetus for the free market to trail-blaze to low-carbon solutions. The revenue from the carbon tax can be returned to the same people it (regressively) taxes, e.g. by capped reimbursements for SocSec taxes. But big incentives are imposed.

I'm not opposed to mid-sized government investment in friendly energy technology. But a large carbon tax is the perfect way to set the free market in motion. The goal, after all, is to afford the full disposal price of CO2.

Note that trading partners which did NOT apply a carbon tax would suffer tariffs, priced to compensate for the failure to collect carbon tax.
  #16  
Old 06-02-2019, 05:36 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,946
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Sure. But carbon tax is the perfect way to achieve your desired result!! Just the right impetus for the free market to trail-blaze to low-carbon solutions. The revenue from the carbon tax can be returned to the same people it (regressively) taxes, e.g. by capped reimbursements for SocSec taxes. But big incentives are imposed.
I am all for a carbon tax, or a cap and trade, or whatever form of GHG emissions reduction policies are necessary. I just want to see the latter part, the innovation part to be more heavily focused upon.
Quote:
I'm not opposed to mid-sized government investment in friendly energy technology. But a large carbon tax is the perfect way to set the free market in motion. The goal, after all, is to afford the full disposal price of CO2.
This will decrease the standard of living, and therefore, be a harder sell. I am not against it, but I don't know if we can get a majority to be for it.
Quote:
Note that trading partners which did NOT apply a carbon tax would suffer tariffs, priced to compensate for the failure to collect carbon tax.
I've always been for tariffs that made sense. If a country can produce widgets more cheaply due to inherent factors, then great. If a country can produce them cheaper by ignoring labor rights or the environment, then a tariff to reduce the competitive advantage of those abuses is prudent.
  #17  
Old 06-02-2019, 06:50 PM
Sam Stone is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Sure. But carbon tax is the perfect way to achieve your desired result!! Just the right impetus for the free market to trail-blaze to low-carbon solutions. The revenue from the carbon tax can be returned to the same people it (regressively) taxes, e.g. by capped reimbursements for SocSec taxes. But big incentives are imposed.

I'm not opposed to mid-sized government investment in friendly energy technology. But a large carbon tax is the perfect way to set the free market in motion. The goal, after all, is to afford the full disposal price of CO2.

Note that trading partners which did NOT apply a carbon tax would suffer tariffs, priced to compensate for the failure to collect carbon tax.
Carbon taxes are dying as a policy prescription, because governments that implement them keep getting kicked out of office.

Carbon taxes also aren't working very well. Energy demand is highly inelastic, and it takes a long time to replace fossil fuels. In the meantime, we're just taxing people.
  #18  
Old 06-02-2019, 08:26 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Carbon taxes are dying as a policy prescription, because governments that implement them keep getting kicked out of office.

Carbon taxes also aren't working very well. Energy demand is highly inelastic, and it takes a long time to replace fossil fuels. In the meantime, we're just taxing people.
If you're saying voters tend to be stupid, we're in agreement.

As for inelastic energy demand, we're trying to move that, at least at the margins, toward conservation and toward energy with lower total cost (when "externals" are afforded). Thus the carbon tax is no bugaboo state planning — to the contrary, it exploits free market economics, by making the carbon price more correct. If the tax policy causes citizens to insulate their homes and install solar panels on the roof — good.

And did you miss the part where the carbon tax revenues are returned to the same people we took it from, e.g. via SocSec rebates?

Obviously this would work well for those driving their bicycles to work, and horribly for those using gas guzzlers on long commutes. That's the whole point: to change incentives.* If you won't instate a smallish carbon tax you're completely unserious about addressing climate change.

* - The change could be phased in over several years.

Last edited by septimus; 06-02-2019 at 08:28 PM.
  #19  
Old 06-03-2019, 11:38 AM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 12,889
Pretty sure that based upon the evidence presented by current scientists, genocide or some other marked drastic reduction in the human population, is the only way to preserve the existence of the human race beyond 500 years from now.
  #20  
Old 06-03-2019, 11:39 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,946
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little View Post
Pretty sure that based upon the evidence presented by current scientists, genocide or some other marked drastic reduction in the human population, is the only way to preserve the existence of the human race beyond 500 years from now.
What evidence would that be?
  #21  
Old 06-03-2019, 11:53 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
What evidence would that be?
At a guess, Malthusian Theory is still alive and kicking with some...
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #22  
Old 06-03-2019, 12:04 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,946
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
At a guess, Malthusian Theory is still alive and kicking with some...
At the rate we are going, with no changes in how we are going, 500 years is pretty optimistic.

But, that we will not change the way we are going is, IMHO, pessimistic, and the pitfalls in front of us, while treacherous, are not inevitable.

I like to think that, just as the Malthusians of the past have been shown to be wrong, the zero population growthers of today will be shown to be just as wrong.
  #23  
Old 06-03-2019, 12:35 PM
Sam Stone is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post

As for inelastic energy demand, we're trying to move that, at least at the margins, toward conservation and toward energy with lower total cost (when "externals" are afforded).
If the costs are lower, explain why every jurisdiction I can find that moved heavily to wind and solar has much higher consumer energy prices?

I'll answer that for you - despite panel prices coming down, solar is still extremely expensive as part of the grid, because you still need baseload energy so you wind up paying for two parallel systems. Also, in northern countries you need to heavily over-build summer capacity in order to get acceptable winter capacity. Or, you import energy at additional cost to make up the slack, and hope you can sell the solar energy in the summer when you have an excess, but you're selling at a discount. Germany has the highest power prices in Europe because of these factors. Ontario saw their energy prices skyrocket when they heavily built out wind and solar. So did South Australia.
Quote:
Thus the carbon tax is no bugaboo state planning — to the contrary, it exploits free market economics, by making the carbon price more correct. If the tax policy causes citizens to insulate their homes and install solar panels on the roof — good.
Yes, I know the arguments, because I've used them myself in favor of carbon taxes. But now we have actual results from the implementatiom of those taxes, and it's not great. There's a lot more going on here than just a Pigouvian efficiency gain. For example, poor people cannot buy new cars, nor afford to retrofit their houses with high efficiency heating. And poor people tend to not do a lot of joyriding in their cars, but instead use them for work or other necessary activities. That's WHY demand for energy is so inelastic. Industry appears perfectly happy to just pass the cost along to the consumer. Industry in America is already pretty energy efficient, and it takes a long time to implement change.

I mean sure, Leonardo DiCaprio and other celebrity climate activists could sell a yacht or two, or maybe turn down the heat on one of their extra swimming pools, but I don't see them doing that either. The rest of us can twiddle on the margins by turning the thermostat down a degree or two in winter, but our control over our energy consumption is very limited.

Also, since the poor and working class can't do that much about their energy consumption, and because energy is a larger portion of their overall income, a carbon tax is regressive. And because it hits a lot of people, it's politically unpopular.

That's just the reality. People are turning against carbon taxes in a big way. Alberta's government imposed one - then they lost in a gigantic landslide and the carbon tax is no more. The same happened in Australia and other places where the carbon tax has been implemented. And bear in mind that the tax isn't nearly big enough to push wholesale changes in behavior and would probably have to be four or five times as high as it typically is to really drive change. And I don't think that is politically palatable to the public.

Quote:
And did you miss the part where the carbon tax revenues are returned to the same people we took it from, e.g. via SocSec rebates?
Bwahahahaha. Have I got a bridge to sell you. Our government announced that the carbon tax would be 'revenue neutral'. It turned out that what they meant by 'revenue neutral' was that the government would take the money and spend it on whatever they wanted, thus 'returning it to the people'. Unlike other taxes where they simply burn the money, I guess.

Other places have used carbon taxes as a slush fund to reward political constituencies, buy votes, etc.

Then there's the rebates to poor people, to try to correct for the regressive nature of the tax, and special carve-outs for important political allies, non-profits, sometimes farmers and certain industries... All of this cuts down the effectiveness of the tax. As usual with government, the implementation of a policy doesn't look very much like the clean ivory tower policy the textbooks recommend.

Quote:
Obviously this would work well for those driving their bicycles to work, and horribly for those using gas guzzlers on long commutes. That's the whole point: to change incentives.* If you won't instate a smallish carbon tax you're completely unserious about addressing climate change.
Some people like bike riding. Others drive. I don't see anyone giving up their car and riding a bike to work unless driving just becomes too painful. A 5c/L carbon tax isn't going to push anyone out of their car.

And by the way, the majority of the population in the western nations do not have the advantage of living in a place like sunny California. Our carbon tax in Alberta isn't going to do away with cars when it's too cold to walk or bike 8 months of the year. It also isn't going to get older people out of their cars, no matter how high the carbon tax. And the days of 'excess' car driving through Sunday afternoon drives and such are long gone. Most people drive directly to work and back, or directly to whatever destination they need to get to, and back. Not a lot of slack there.

Over a long period of time, the carbon tax might move some people on the margin into a more efficient car when it comes time to replace their own. But this is a long-term, and fairly small effect. The auto fleet lifespan averages about 12 years. So half the cars get turned over every 12 years. If carbon taxes caused people to buy cars that were, say, 10% more fuel efficient, then the carbon tax will have improved fleet fuel economy by 5% in 12 years. I guess that's something, but measured against the price, which is that carbon taxes make climate change policy less tenable by getting governments who support climate change policies kicked out of office, is it worth it?
  #24  
Old 06-03-2019, 02:10 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,117
I thought I'd link to this (admittedly long) video that sort of goes into some of the things Sam is talking about. It's called California's Renewable Energy Problem by Real Engineering, who is, I should say, a big advocate for renewable energy. The video talks about the real world issues with solar and also gets into some of the issues with large scale batteries for energy storage, as well as the real world implications and issues with California's plans to shut down it's last nuclear power plant and how that factors into all of this. I was going to post this in the other renewable energy thread, but I gave up on that one so thought I'd post it here. Not that it's likely to be watched in either, but what the hell.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #25  
Old 06-03-2019, 02:39 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
If the costs are lower, explain why every jurisdiction I can find that moved heavily to wind and solar has much higher consumer energy prices?

I'll answer that for you - despite panel prices coming down, solar is still extremely expensive as part of the grid, because you still need baseload energy so you wind up paying for two parallel systems. Also, in northern countries you need to heavily over-build summer capacity in order to get acceptable winter capacity. Or, you import energy at additional cost to make up the slack, and hope you can sell the solar energy in the summer when you have an excess, but you're selling at a discount. Germany has the highest power prices in Europe because of these factors. Ontario saw their energy prices skyrocket when they heavily built out wind and solar. So did South Australia.
http://theconversation.com/factcheck...ble-grid-92928
Quote:
For many years the drivers for retail prices have been network costs – which have very little to do with renewables.

But over the past 18 months, there has also been a increase in wholesale electricity prices across the entire National Electricity Market. A range of factors have contributed to this. These include the increase in gas prices, and the tightening of the supply-demand balance.

The closures of South Australia’s Northern Power Station in 2016 and Victoria’s Hazelwood Power Station have contributed to a reduction in electricity supply (capacity).

The ACCC is also investigating “transfer pricing” – which is when a business that’s an energy generator as well as a retailer shifts costs from one part of its business to another.

But as I’ll explain below, even if wholesale prices become the main driver of retail prices, it’s not accurate to place the blame squarely on renewables.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Yes, I know the arguments, because I've used them myself in favor of carbon taxes. But now we have actual results from the implementatiom of those taxes, and it's not great. There's a lot more going on here than just a Pigouvian efficiency gain. For example, poor people cannot buy new cars, nor afford to retrofit their houses with high efficiency heating. And poor people tend to not do a lot of joyriding in their cars, but instead use them for work or other necessary activities. That's WHY demand for energy is so inelastic. Industry appears perfectly happy to just pass the cost along to the consumer. Industry in America is already pretty energy efficient, and it takes a long time to implement change.

I mean sure, Leonardo DiCaprio and other celebrity climate activists could sell a yacht or two, or maybe turn down the heat on one of their extra swimming pools, but I don't see them doing that either. The rest of us can twiddle on the margins by turning the thermostat down a degree or two in winter, but our control over our energy consumption is very limited.

Also, since the poor and working class can't do that much about their energy consumption, and because energy is a larger portion of their overall income, a carbon tax is regressive. And because it hits a lot of people, it's politically unpopular.

That's just the reality. People are turning against carbon taxes in a big way. Alberta's government imposed one - then they lost in a gigantic landslide and the carbon tax is no more. The same happened in Australia and other places where the carbon tax has been implemented. And bear in mind that the tax isn't nearly big enough to push wholesale changes in behavior and would probably have to be four or five times as high as it typically is to really drive change. And I don't think that is politically palatable to the public.
As the other poster noted, ignorance can get the ones that do not want to deal with the issue far.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Bwahahahaha. Have I got a bridge to sell you. Our government announced that the carbon tax would be 'revenue neutral'. It turned out that what they meant by 'revenue neutral' was that the government would take the money and spend it on whatever they wanted, thus 'returning it to the people'. Unlike other taxes where they simply burn the money, I guess.

Other places have used carbon taxes as a slush fund to reward political constituencies, buy votes, etc.

Then there's the rebates to poor people, to try to correct for the regressive nature of the tax, and special carve-outs for important political allies, non-profits, sometimes farmers and certain industries... All of this cuts down the effectiveness of the tax. As usual with government, the implementation of a policy doesn't look very much like the clean ivory tower policy the textbooks recommend.
Do you have a cite about the main part of the revenue not going back to people that can afford this less?

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ans-more-money
Quote:
But rebates will more than offset higher fuel costs

One key component of the federal carbon tax is that it’s revenue-neutral, similar to the policy proposal from Citizens’ Climate Lobby. All the taxed money will be distributed back to the provinces from which they were generated. The provinces will in turn rebate about 90% the revenues back to individual taxpayers. The rebates are anticipated to exceed the increased energy costs for about 70% of Canadian households.

For example, a Manitoba family will receive a $336 rebate in 2019 compared to its increased costs of $232. A similar family in Saskatchewan will receive $598 compared to its higher costs of $403. In Ontario, families will receive $300 to offset its $244 in carbon taxes. And in New Brunswick a $248 rebate more than offsets the average household cost of $202. The rebates will more than double by 2022 as the carbon tax rises, and the net financial benefit to households will grow over time.
Quote:
Climate change is expensive

The Canadian government recognizes that climate change impacts are expensive:

Quote:
Climate change has already had financial impacts on Canada, and these costs will only continue to grow. In 2016, it was estimated that larger and more intense weather events will cost the federal Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements program around $902 million each year. The health costs of extreme weather are estimated to be over $1.6 billion a year. The cost of property damages from climate change averaged $405 million per year between 1983 and 2008, but have risen dramatically to $1.8 billion a year since 2009. That number is expected to grow as high as $43 billion by 2050.
It would be cheaper to reduce those costs by slowing global warming than to pay for increasingly extreme weather damages. With this carbon tax, Canada is recognizing that reality, and in fact is offsetting the financial impact on its taxpayers by returning the revenue to households. This is an approach that studies have shown can boost the economy because disposable income rises due to the rebate exceeding increased energy costs for 70% of Canadians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Some people like bike riding. Others drive. I don't see anyone giving up their car and riding a bike to work unless driving just becomes too painful. A 5c/L carbon tax isn't going to push anyone out of their car.

And by the way, the majority of the population in the western nations do not have the advantage of living in a place like sunny California. Our carbon tax in Alberta isn't going to do away with cars when it's too cold to walk or bike 8 months of the year. It also isn't going to get older people out of their cars, no matter how high the carbon tax. And the days of 'excess' car driving through Sunday afternoon drives and such are long gone. Most people drive directly to work and back, or directly to whatever destination they need to get to, and back. Not a lot of slack there.

Over a long period of time, the carbon tax might move some people on the margin into a more efficient car when it comes time to replace their own. But this is a long-term, and fairly small effect. The auto fleet lifespan averages about 12 years. So half the cars get turned over every 12 years. If carbon taxes caused people to buy cars that were, say, 10% more fuel efficient, then the carbon tax will have improved fleet fuel economy by 5% in 12 years. I guess that's something, but measured against the price, which is that carbon taxes make climate change policy less tenable by getting governments who support climate change policies kicked out of office, is it worth it?
Good thing that me and most posters in this thread favor nuclear in places like that.
  #26  
Old 06-03-2019, 05:31 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,946
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
I thought I'd link to this (admittedly long) video that sort of goes into some of the things Sam is talking about. It's called California's Renewable Energy Problem by Real Engineering, who is, I should say, a big advocate for renewable energy. The video talks about the real world issues with solar and also gets into some of the issues with large scale batteries for energy storage, as well as the real world implications and issues with California's plans to shut down it's last nuclear power plant and how that factors into all of this. I was going to post this in the other renewable energy thread, but I gave up on that one so thought I'd post it here. Not that it's likely to be watched in either, but what the hell.
That came up in my feed a while back, and I watched part of it then. Decent overview, but nothing really new to anyone who follows the subject.

Without serious advances in battery technology, if only to make them cheap enough to roll out the enormous number we would need, renewable energy simply is not dense enough or reliable enough to replace fossil fuels. There are places where it will make sense as a supplement, but never as the main workhorse of powering our world. Keep in mind (not you, I'm sure you know), we also want to transfer our transportation needs to electric as well, which is going to place a greater and greater demand on electricity production. Massive desalination will probably be needed in the not too distant future, and that's going to need lots of power. If we make power cheap enough, we can even start using it to recapture the carbon in the atmosphere, either sequestering it, or using it for feed stock for making liquid fuels, as there will still be applications where liquid fuel will be far superior to batteries.

The only thing that can reliably replace fossil fuels is nuclear. I'm for investing in new generation fission plants, but the only other alternative I see is to dump a trillion dollars or more a year into fusion until we figure out how to make it work for commercial power generation. Shouldn't be much more than 50 years, right?
  #27  
Old 06-03-2019, 05:41 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
The rest of us can twiddle on the margins by turning the thermostat down a degree or two in winter, but our control over our energy consumption is very limited.
This seems like a rather naive take on the situation. Of course we can have much greater control over our energy consumption and carbon footprint than that: we can choose not to have a car, choose not to have children, drastically reduce our meat consumption, and so on.

Admittedly most people don't want to choose these options, and even in the aggregate they wouldn't be sufficient to solve the problem. But they definitely have way more impact than just "turning the thermostat down a degree or two".
  #28  
Old 06-05-2019, 01:19 AM
Sam Stone is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
This seems like a rather naive take on the situation. Of course we can have much greater control over our energy consumption and carbon footprint than that: we can choose not to have a car, choose not to have children, drastically reduce our meat consumption, and so on.
I specifically said 'short term'. Even inelastic markets eventually correct for shocks. Over the very long term, higher gas prices will probably incentivize some people to live closer to work, buy smaller cars, etc. But these are effects that show up in decades, not years. As I said, if you incentivize 10% of the people to buy a car that's 10% more efficient next time they buy a car, then in 12 years about 5% of the cars on the road will be 10% more efficient than they otherwise would be. Even if you got everyone to downsize and buy a vehicle that's 10% more efficient, that's only a 5% gain in fleet efficiency in 12 years. That's not a big effect when we keep hearing that we only have a decade to do something before all is lost.

Quote:
Admittedly most people don't want to choose these options, and even in the aggregate they wouldn't be sufficient to solve the problem. But they definitely have way more impact than just "turning the thermostat down a degree or two".
But is the effect worth the cost? I definitely agree that a carbon tax will have SOME effect. There are always people on the margin. But the question is whether the cost/benefit is there. And the cost right now appears to be that it's hugely unpopular and if more politicians that support it keep losing elections, it's going to damage the cause of climate change dramatically.

There are several provinces in Canada threatening to sue the federal government or even leave the country if the feds impose a carbon tax. The Alberta carbon tax was the #1 issue in the last campaign, and the NDP were destroyed.

As I said, I've argued for carbon taxes. I understand them, and I understand that in an ideal world they can actually make markets more efficient. But the reality is that they appear to be incredibly unpopular, and the opponents are fighting it by denying climate change in general. The carbon tax is turning people away from climate change science, which is going to make it harder to get anything done at all. The question is, is it really worth it? Are we really seeing the kind of reductions in CO2 due to carbon taxes that warrant doing this kind of PR damage?
  #29  
Old 06-05-2019, 07:02 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,396
I don't have time to argue with a barrage of half-truths. Google "US CO2 emissions compared with EU CO2 emissions" and report back when you have a more informed view.

Quote:
That's not a big effect when we keep hearing that we only have a decade to do something before all is lost.
I know you like "colourful language," Sam — and thanks for this jab which tells us what we need to know about your views on climate change — but in the real world, thresholds and future projections are fuzzy.

Is there some X before which all is saved and beyond which all is lost? Very doubtful. If there is, nobody knows what X is. Do you have a cite for hearing X = 9.99 years?
  #30  
Old 06-05-2019, 08:37 PM
Kimera757 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
We have been warned repeatedly that the consequences of climate change (say, an increase of 2-3 degrees in Celsius) will be utterly catastrophic, and yet the vast majority of climate-change activists do little more than tweet, post on social media, do some half-hearted lobbying of politicians and maybe film some documentaries. This seems to be a "war effort" that is completely disproportionate in relation to the actual stake of the war - it would be like going into World War II with a few placards, demonstration rallies, and a few thousand troops. It doesn't seem to reach even 5% of the effort needed to make a meaningful change in the climate trend.
Climate change activists have done a really poor job over the years. Turning to "extremism" would only make things worse.

I went to a climate event three months ago. Well, it was billed as a climate event, but it was really an environmental event. They discussed climate change, but also the ozone layer, pollution, corporate greed, ignorance, loss of biodiversity (including the loss of bees) and so forth. I was happy to see the focus not being exclusively on climate change, while at the same time not ignoring it.

Peter Sandman is a risk communicator, and he talks about the risks of climate change (and also vaccine denial and other such topics). He uses this formula:

Risk = Hazard + Outrage

I really feel the first term should be "perceived risk". The hazard is the actual hazard of climate change, whereas the outrage is what people viscerally feel. For climate change, the perceived risk would be moderate: hazard is high, but outrage is low. Same for extreme weather events. The outrage toward water pollution is more severe, and the outrage over radiation is extreme.

The green movement does not consist of people who think the same way as everyone else. Thinking about humanity in the long term is harder than just thinking about yourself and what's coming up within a week. The greens also feel, viscerally, more outrage than most people about climate change... and don't realize this! Trying to educate those who don't feel the outrage often backfires. It doesn't help that attempts to educate people in a less emotion matter doesn't work due to all of the anti-green propaganda out there.

I procrastinate. One thing I learned to do to avoid procrastination is to break down any tasks I'm dreading doing into small concrete steps. Unfortunately there aren't many "easy" steps involving fighting climate change. Use less gas. Sure... but then people don't do this. They don't really perceive how much gas is being used, and get surprised when they run low on gas and have to buy some. Walk fifteen minutes rather than drive is more concrete, and it would work where I live, but not in a suburb or in a rural area.

I really feel the government should just change things. Carbon taxes and so forth, such as the Canadian Liberal Party's attempt at the "Green Shift" (a large increase in carbon taxes matched by a cut in personal taxes). Unfortunately, those are almost always very unpopular. (Macchiavelli says not to change the tax system! I guess he was right.) I think it might be better to just raise carbon taxes without a counterbalancing reduction in other taxes, because nobody believes this will be revenue-neutral anyway. That would be knocked down by the next conservative government, then reintroduced when a more liberal government comes to power, and so forth.
  #31  
Old 06-05-2019, 09:16 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Likewise, it appears that many climate-change activists intellectually believe that global warming, if left largely unchecked, will lead to calamitous damage to the planet and humanity, yet their actions are also...........sleepwalking towards the fate that awaits.
What we need is large-scale political solutions that change the behavior of billions of people. Strapping on a suicide vest doesn't advance that cause. Shooting an oil executive doesn't advance that cause. And you're ignoring the ways that people do try to minimize their own carbon footprint to the extent that they can do so.

On the other hand, if you see someone about to be murdered, you can save that one life by putting your own body at risk. Even delaying a murder is a worthwhile thing because it might create a chance for that person to be saved by themselves or others.

That's why I don't understand any pro-lifer who says abortion is murder, but they aren't risking anything to save a human life. Well, apart from understanding that it's hypocrisy.

It's possible that future generations will fault all of us for not strapping on suicide vests or taking some other desperate action to arrest carbon pollution. I mean... intellectually I find it a pretty convincing case that humanity is about to kill enormous chunks of life on earth and possibly render it uninhabitable. If I understood that on an emotional level, then I would strap on a suicide vest and do something drastic. But it's too horrible to believe, so I tell myself that driving a Prius and avoiding air travel is probably good enough.
  #32  
Old 06-06-2019, 01:08 AM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,178
Well if we really want to get extreme, once we close our coal plants we should be bombing all the ones in developing countries. It might result in billions of deaths and a nuclear winter, but i don't think anyone will be worried about climate change anymore.
  #33  
Old 06-08-2019, 09:36 AM
Urbanredneck is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,435
They are extreme by the rhetoric. They constantly say the sky is falling and we will all be flooded out by next year or something like that and then the next year comes and nothing happens. After awhile people quit believing.

I remember they were predicting a global food shortage yet right now their is a global food glut.

And the thing is nobody really know what climate change will do. Yes, I know its happening. No, I dont know the long term effects.
  #34  
Old 06-08-2019, 12:25 PM
Sam Stone is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,037
The worst thing climate change activists are doing is to bring the whole intersectional leftist thing to the debate, which is extremely counterproductive. The 'Green New Deal' has more expenses associated with left-wing social policy baked into it than the climate change policy.

The left needs the right to be able to pass sweeping climate change legislation. What they should be engaged in is outreach - trying to widen the tent and appeal to the people who currently oppose climate policy. Instead, they seem hell-bent on narrowing their support as much as they can. If support for climate change policy requires that people also support universal income, free college education, 70% tax rates and a bunch of other left wing dream items, they are automatically excluding the right's support and feeding in to the belief that climate change is just a stalking horse for a left-wing power grab.

People who really care about climate change have let their issue be hijacked by virtue signallers, hucksters, and leftists who ARE using the issue as a power/money grab. The left needs to police their own, because the right won't do it.

The left does this shit all the time. I supported Pride, until Pride became a march for the extreme left and started excluding groups like the Log Cabin Republicans. I support gay rights, but I cannot march with people carrying hammer and sickle flags or anti-semitic BDS signs. So my support is gone.

Since the left already votes for climate change, gay rights and the rest, you would think the focus of the leaders of these movements would be to expand their political support to the middle and the right. Instead, it seems like they only want the truly woke, and everyone else can go to hell.

Get the intersectional leftists out of the climate debate and start working on how to make those policies more appealing to the right, or nothing serious will ever get done.
  #35  
Old 06-08-2019, 02:49 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
The worst thing climate change activists are doing is to bring the whole intersectional leftist thing to the debate, which is extremely counterproductive. The 'Green New Deal' has more expenses associated with left-wing social policy baked into it than the climate change policy.
Not all those expenses will come from the government, many will come from corporations that also do know that dealing with the issue will be more expensive later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
The left needs the right to be able to pass sweeping climate change legislation. What they should be engaged in is outreach - trying to widen the tent and appeal to the people who currently oppose climate policy. Instead, they seem hell-bent on narrowing their support as much as they can. If support for climate change policy requires that people also support universal income, free college education, 70% tax rates and a bunch of other left wing dream items, they are automatically excluding the right's support and feeding in to the belief that climate change is just a stalking horse for a left-wing power grab.
A lot of those items are related, for example there will be a disruption of many people working in the fossil fuel industry that will need things like that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
People who really care about climate change have let their issue be hijacked by virtue signallers, hucksters, and leftists who ARE using the issue as a power/money grab. The left needs to police their own, because the right won't do it.


What in heck then were the votes against the Green New Deal and other proposed actions that were defeated by the right then if not policing against the left?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
The left does this shit all the time. I supported Pride, until Pride became a march for the extreme left and started excluding groups like the Log Cabin Republicans. I support gay rights, but I cannot march with people carrying hammer and sickle flags or anti-semitic BDS signs. So my support is gone.
So what a fringe is doing negates what most supporters of gay rights do? That is very silly once one takes into account that the head honcho of the Republicans declared that there were fine people among this thrash:

https://www.vox.com/2019/4/26/185179...harlottesville

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Since the left already votes for climate change, gay rights and the rest, you would think the focus of the leaders of these movements would be to expand their political support to the middle and the right. Instead, it seems like they only want the truly woke, and everyone else can go to hell.
As who Trump and a mess of Republicans support, the reality is that they do tell us, many times before and nowadays, that we all can go to hell.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...science-denial

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Get the intersectional leftists out of the climate debate and start working on how to make those policies more appealing to the right, or nothing serious will ever get done.
You first, a search for who has the right clutching pearls due to what that fringe says (and they are less when the issue is just climate change, race relation is another issue) is a problem because very right wing sources of information see it that way; now looking why it is a problem for the right shows that a lot of it is just uneasiness that comes for having to deal with it.

https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/20...discrimination
Quote:
There may not be a word in American conservatism more hated right now than “intersectionality.” On the right, intersectionality is seen as “the new caste system” placing nonwhite, non-heterosexual people on top.

To many conservatives, intersectionality means “because you’re a minority, you get special standards, special treatment in the eyes of some.” It “promotes solipsism at the personal level and division at the social level.” It represents a form of feminism that “puts a label on you. It tells you how oppressed you are. It tells you what you’re allowed to say, what you’re allowed to think.” Intersectionality is thus “really dangerous” or a “conspiracy theory of victimization.”

This is a highly unusual level of disdain for a word that until several years ago was a legal term in relative obscurity outside academic circles. It was coined in 1989 by professor Kimberlé Crenshaw to describe how race, class, gender, and other individual characteristics “intersect” with one another and overlap. “Intersectionality” has, in a sense, gone viral over the past half-decade, resulting in a backlash from the right.

In my conversations with right-wing critics of intersectionality, I’ve found that what upsets them isn’t the theory itself. Indeed, they largely agree that it accurately describes the way people from different backgrounds encounter the world. The lived experiences — and experiences of discrimination — of a black woman will be different from those of a white woman, or a black man, for example. They object to its implications, uses, and, most importantly, its consequences, what some conservatives view as the upending of racial and cultural hierarchies to create a new one.
Quote:
When you talk to conservatives about the term itself, however, they’re more measured. They say the concept of intersectionality — the idea that people experience discrimination differently depending on their overlapping identities — isn’t the problem. Because, as David French, a writer for National Review who described intersectionality as “the dangerous faith” in 2018, told me, the idea is more or less indisputable.

“An African American man is going to experience the world differently than an African American woman,” French told me. “Somebody who is LGBT is going to experience the world differently than somebody who’s straight. Somebody who’s LGBT and African American is going to experience the world differently than somebody who’s LGBT and Latina. It’s sort of this commonsense notion that different categories of people have different kinds of experience.”

What many conservatives object to is not the term but its application on college campuses and beyond.
Quote:
The conservatives I spoke to understood quite well what intersectionality is. What’s more, they didn’t seem bothered by intersectionality as legal concept, or intersectionality as an idea. (I asked Shapiro this question directly, and he said, “the original articulation of the idea by Crenshaw is accurate and not a problem.”) Rather, they’re deeply concerned by the practice of intersectionality, and moreover, what they concluded intersectionality would ask, or demand, of them and of society.

Indeed, intersectionality is intended to ask a lot of individuals and movements alike, requiring that efforts to address one form of oppression take others into account. Efforts to fight racism would require examining other forms of prejudice (like anti-Semitism, for example); efforts to eliminate gender disparities would require examining how women of color experience gender bias differently from white women (and how nonwhite men do too, compared to white men).
  #36  
Old 06-08-2019, 03:06 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
They are extreme by the rhetoric. They constantly say the sky is falling and we will all be flooded out by next year or something like that and then the next year comes and nothing happens. After awhile people quit believing.
Nope.

https://climatecommunication.yale.ed...d-are-worried/

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
I remember they were predicting a global food shortage yet right now their is a global food glut.
Need a cite for that, because usually, among the right, sources like to talk about prediction failures when it actually came from themselves or popular media that does not check research in the proper way.

https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age...termediate.htm

Now, I have to say that the cite is needed also because even on the food front it was pointed before at the current state some benefit to crops was to be expected, but once more heat comes a lot of the negatives will increase over the few positives. Good things like: "Improved agriculture in some high latitude regions: will encounter more negatives, such as: "Decreasing human water supplies, increased fire frequency, ecosystem change and expanded deserts"

https://skepticalscience.com/global-...termediate.htm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
And the thing is nobody really know what climate change will do. Yes, I know its happening. No, I dont know the long term effects.
Like if that was not mentioned many times before:

https://skepticalscience.com/climate...termediate.htm
Quote:
Sudden vs slow change

Life flourished in the Eocene, the Cretaceous and other times of high CO2 in the atmosphere because the greenhouse gasses were in balance with the carbon in the oceans and the weathering of rocks. Life, ocean chemistry, and atmospheric gasses had millions of years to adjust to those levels.

But there have been several times in Earth’s past when Earth's temperature jumped rapidly, in much the same way as they are doing today. Those times were caused by large and rapid greenhouse gas emissions, just like humans are causing today. In Earth's past the trigger for these greenhouse gas emissions was often unusually massive volcanic eruptions known as “Large Igneous Provinces,” with knock-on effects that included huge releases of CO2 and methane from organic-rich sediments. But there is no Large Igneous Province operating today, or anytime in the last 16 million years. Today’s volcanoes, in comparison, don’t even come close to emitting the levels of greenhouse gasses that humans do.

Those rapid global warming events were almost always highly destructive for life, causing mass extinctions such as at the end of the Permian, Triassic, or even mid-Cambrian periods. The symptoms from those events (huge and rapid carbon emissions, a big rapid jump in global temperatures, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, widespread oxygen-starved zones in the oceans) are all happening today with human-caused climate change. The outcomes for life on Earth were often dire. The end Permian extinction saw around 90% of species go extinct, and it left tropical regions on the planet lethally hot, too hot for complex life to survive. The Triassic extinction was another, one of the 5 biggest mass extinctions in the geological record. Even in the end Cretaceous extinction, in which dinosaurs were finally wiped out by an asteroid impact, a major global-warming extinction event was already underway causing a major extinction within 150,000 years of the impact. That global warming 66 million years ago was due to catastrophic eruptions in India, which emitted a pulse of CO2 that sent global temperatures soaring by 7°C (13°F).

So yes, the climate has changed before, and in most cases scientists know why. In all cases we see the same association between CO2 levels and global temperatures. And past examples of rapid carbon emissions offer no comfort at all for the likely outcome from today’s climate change.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 06-08-2019 at 03:07 PM.
  #37  
Old 06-08-2019, 04:39 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
TPeople who really care about climate change have let their issue be hijacked by virtue signallers, hucksters, and leftists who ARE using the issue as a power/money grab.
When you use the term 'virtue signallers' you're signalling that you're not about serious debate.

Quote:
The left needs to police their own, because the right won't do it.
You just spent an entire post policing the left in some pretty vicious terms. The right is happy to police the left. In fact, that's all they do.
  #38  
Old 06-08-2019, 05:47 PM
Sam Stone is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
When you use the term 'virtue signallers' you're signalling that you're not about serious debate.
Oh goody, another arbitrary rule designed to avoid debate. Nicely done.

Quote:
You just spent an entire post policing the left in some pretty vicious terms. The right is happy to police the left. In fact, that's all they do.
But they won't listen. That's the point. If someone on the right says, "Hey, stop adding all that leftist shit to climate change policy," they'll just get called names. If Barack Obama comes out and says it, the left might listen. If some heavyweight left-wing funding sources threatened to cut off funds for a climate change protest if the organizers insist on adding abortion or taxing the rich to the platform, perhaps they'll stop doing it.

Take this Pride thing. The advancement of gay rights has always hinged on getting the right to accept it. The left is fully on board. So tell me how it helps a pride parade to allow Marxists and Palestinian activists to march with them, while excluding actual gay Republican groups? How does that benefit anyone at all? How does that help move gay rights forward? It seems to me that it's more likely to alienate the people you are seeking to win over, if that's the intent at all.
  #39  
Old 06-08-2019, 06:01 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Oh goody, another arbitrary rule designed to avoid debate. Nicely done.

But they won't listen. That's the point. If someone on the right says, "Hey, stop adding all that leftist shit to climate change policy," they'll just get called names. If Barack Obama comes out and says it, the left might listen. If some heavyweight left-wing funding sources threatened to cut off funds for a climate change protest if the organizers insist on adding abortion or taxing the rich to the platform, perhaps they'll stop doing it.

Take this Pride thing. The advancement of gay rights has always hinged on getting the right to accept it. The left is fully on board. So tell me how it helps a pride parade to allow Marxists and Palestinian activists to march with them, while excluding actual gay Republican groups? How does that benefit anyone at all? How does that help move gay rights forward? It seems to me that it's more likely to alienate the people you are seeking to win over, if that's the intent at all.
Who said something about arbitrary rules?
  #40  
Old 06-08-2019, 06:27 PM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,887
Clearly, if anyone cares deeply for our best interests, it's gotta be Sam. He is fraught with concern for the clarity of our message. So, bless his heart, he means well.
  #41  
Old 06-10-2019, 10:44 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,591
As of now, it looks like all the actions of climate-change activists amount to is setting themselves up for "We told you and you would not listen" decades down the road.


(Not that I'm saying that that's what climate-change activists want, but rather, that, realistically, it appears to be the fate they/we are headed towards.)
  #42  
Old 06-10-2019, 04:01 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Oh goody, another arbitrary rule designed to avoid debate. Nicely done.
Pot, meet kettle. You're happy to make an arbitrary dismissal like 'virtue signaling', but boy howdy, you sure can't take it yourself.

Quote:
Take this Pride thing. The advancement of gay rights has always hinged on getting the right to accept it.
The right resists progress kicking and screaming. Suicidally so, if necessary. It is hilarious to have been alive to see the right hysterically resisting every effort to secure civil rights for anyone, only to see them pretending barely a generation later that it only happened when they jumped on board.
  #43  
Old 06-10-2019, 04:15 PM
LAZombie is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 259
According to the World Bank, the average Mexican produces 3.9 metric tons of CO2 a year while the average American produces 16.9 metric tons. Once a a Mexican or Central American arrives in the USA, their carbon footprint increases exponentially.

If climate change activists truly believed in Global Warming, they would fully support Trump's wall and any other measures to stop legal and illegal immigration. Otherwise, they are disingenuous.
  #44  
Old 06-10-2019, 04:44 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
According to the World Bank, the average Mexican produces 3.9 metric tons of CO2 a year while the average American produces 16.9 metric tons. Once a a Mexican or Central American arrives in the USA, their carbon footprint increases exponentially.
We know their carbon footprint doesn't change because conservatives assure us that Mexicans don't become Americans when they cross the border.
  #45  
Old 06-10-2019, 05:06 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAZombie View Post
According to the World Bank, the average Mexican produces 3.9 metric tons of CO2 a year while the average American produces 16.9 metric tons. Once a a Mexican or Central American arrives in the USA, their carbon footprint increases exponentially.

If climate change activists truly believed in Global Warming, they would fully support Trump's wall and any other measures to stop legal and illegal immigration. Otherwise, they are disingenuous.
Too late, I already pointed out what a big liar Trump is, not only for denying the issue, but also that he is fooling many with the wall, Trump is not using that political support he has among the right into making new nuclear plants that can help a lot with the issue but instead he continues to waste taxpayers money into a useless wall. (BTW that steel and concrete used to build the useless wall has a hefty carbon footprint too)

But never mind that, the other point here is that you missed the memo: in evidence cited before, cities that have more immigrants are the ones with the smallest carbon footprints. So to begin with, nativists that try to be "neophyte" environmentalists need to acknowledge that environmentalists have already looked at the impact.

So you need to check a past tread like this one:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=612003

On that thread I mentioned this about the contrarian nativists leaders that attempted and failed to put a wedge between environmentalists groups by misusing the issue of immigration: (hence the comment of you not getting the memo)

"What I conclude in the end is that the real cowardice is in the efforts to divide the environmentalist movement with what amounts to be really a cheap shot. The reality is that virtually all conservatives in office that oppose immigration also oppose doing anything about CO2 emissions, worse, they claim that there is no problem at all.

Until I see any brave efforts by those anti-immigrant organizations to pressure republican leaders to do something about the main causes of the big carbon footprint that the US has, It is clear to me that they are indeed just doing a real coward thing by continuing to accuse the ones that have the least to blame, the immigrants."

In essence that thread shows what others that are contrarians are falling for (and one nativist poster in that thread was seen to end up as a Fascist in a later thread), first they become nativists, then fake environmentalists, then they end up as Holocaust deniers. Please clean up your sources of information before falling down in the pit of their sorry propaganda.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 06-10-2019 at 05:11 PM.
  #46  
Old 06-11-2019, 01:32 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post

The right resists progress kicking and screaming. Suicidally so, if necessary. It is hilarious to have been alive to see the right hysterically resisting every effort to secure civil rights for anyone, only to see them pretending barely a generation later that it only happened when they jumped on board.
I know you were talking to Sam, but I wanted to comment in this article. How did the Flight 93 election work out? They stormed the cockpit and got the idiot in charge. What do we get? Hm, let's see, trillion dollar deficits thanks to tax cuts, 89% of which go to the top 1%. Obamacare.... not repealed, just McCain blamed for the failure. Infrastructure... not addressed. Migrants? Yay, they are basically being tortured! Kids in cages, families separated, and righties still won't acknowledge that Obama actually deported more people ( I'll let others speculate why that is). The fierce denial of racism while taking the explicitly racist stance that immigrants tend to vote Dem since the Pubs simply won't. abandon. their. racist. policies. towards. them. Ooo, so unfair! So global leftist tide of brown people!

And my favorite point of all, that Trump and his GOP somehow represent "what has counted as knowledge in the West for millennia" and also the primal scream of "I WANT TO LIVE!!!!!1!" Yeah, that's why we get the bottomlessly ignorant position of climate change denial, supported by zero evidence, which if not changed is going to result in the deaths of just about all of your grandchildren.

I am not sure if educated and informed people are being extreme enough. But obviously there is a mountain of horseshit to plow through before we can even start a conversation with these poor suckers who have bought into the propaganda. Rush the cockpit or... There will be no tax cuts for the wealthy!!
  #47  
Old 06-14-2019, 11:50 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,774
This article had some good discussion about alarmism among climate change activists: Vox - Will climate change kill everyone — or just lots and lots of people?

Quote:
Is climate change going to end human civilization for good, and so soon that we may as well not bother saving for retirement?

That’s the theory put forward in a recent viral Vice post: “New Report Warns ‘High Likelihood of Human Civilization Coming to an End’ Within 30 Years.’”

The Vice story summed up a new report from the Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration, an Australian think tank, arguing that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change analysis of the impacts of climate change understates how much harm it’ll do, and that in reality we face something much worse, with runaway feedback effects amplifying the initial warming until the Earth is “largely uninhabitable.” It doesn’t actually argue that the world will end in 30 years, but it suggests we’ll reach the tipping point by then.

The story went up on Vice with an orange-tinged, haunting illustration of the Statue of Liberty submerged to the neck by rising seas. The post was shared more than 70,000 times on Facebook and left readers terrified, despairing, and sharing doubts about whether it’s ethical to have children.

The Breakthrough report — and the media coverage of it — frustrated many climate scientists. In a detailed response, six researchers argued that the report overstates the risks from climate change, and that subsequent reporting overstated it even further. The fact is that even the most pessimistic reports, evaluated responsibly, don’t suggest climate change will end human civilization, much less within our lifetimes. (Don’t stop saving for retirement.) Vice later altered the headline to “New Report Warns ‘High Likelihood Of Human Civilization Coming To An End’ Starting Within 30 Years’ — and even published a rebuttal.

But the Vice piece tapped into what’s actually been a long-running and sometimes contentious conversation about the climate crisis — specifically, about whether it’s merely just devastating or in fact an existential risk to humanity. ...
  #48  
Old 06-15-2019, 12:31 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
This article had some good discussion about alarmism among climate change activists: Vox - Will climate change kill everyone — or just lots and lots of people?
So, yeah, lots and lots of people dying will be good.. /s

As the article ends with:

Quote:
So where does this all leave us? It’s worthwhile to look into the worst-case scenarios, and even to highlight and emphasize them. But it’s important to accurately represent current climate consensus along the way. It’s hard to see how we solve a problem we have widespread misapprehensions about in either direction, and when a warning is overstated or inaccurate, it may sow more confusion than inspiration.

Climate change won’t kill us all. That matters. Yet it’s one of the biggest challenges ahead of us, and the results of our failure to act will be devastating. That message — the most accurate message we’ve got — will have to stand on its own.
And as noted before, I do stand by what I said that not pointing out at the plausible worse scenarios has led to a lot of complacency that has allowed worse scenarios to become plausible. And, a lot of that complacency has taken place thanks to the contrarian propaganda. And now we see the results, now bad scenarios are more likely thanks to the past inaction when more optimistic scenarios were the ones that were allowed to be talked about.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 06-15-2019 at 12:32 AM.
  #49  
Old 06-15-2019, 07:09 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
The left needs the right to be able to pass sweeping climate change legislation. What they should be engaged in is outreach - trying to widen the tent and appeal to the people who currently oppose climate policy. Instead, they seem hell-bent on narrowing their support as much as they can. If support for climate change policy requires that people also support universal income, free college education, 70% tax rates and a bunch of other left wing dream items, they are automatically excluding the right's support and feeding in to the belief that climate change is just a stalking horse for a left-wing power grab.
People in favor of gay rights should never express an opinion on climate change? Someone interested in tax policy needs to shut up about climate change? People who want to mitigate climate change need to shut up about all other political issues?

I'll guess that your point isn't really so nonsensical, but it sure sounds like it.

Give the GOP credit for one thing: A single issue: Stupidity. Scientists are stupid; liberals are stupid; non-Christians are stupid; gun control is stupid; foreigners are stupid; government workers and every President before Trump are stupid. A single versatile message!
  #50  
Old 06-16-2019, 12:31 PM
Sam Stone is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
People in favor of gay rights should never express an opinion on climate change? Someone interested in tax policy needs to shut up about climate change? People who want to mitigate climate change need to shut up about all other political issues?
What a bizarre comment. No one is talking about opinions - I was talking about the logic of marrying legislation to fix what we are told is an existential threat, with legislation for policies guaranteed to reduce support for the bill.

As an analogy, let's say Republicans believed that the military needed vastly more funding to counter a threat from another country that they claim WILL attack unless the military is greatly built up over 10 years. They have all the Republican votes they need, but can't get Democrats onboard and need their votes to succeed.

Given that scenario, now imagine that the Republicans come up with the 'Military New Deal', which is an omnibus legislative package that marries their military budget with a laundry list of Republican wishes - a ban on abortion, shutting down the Department of Education, tax cuts, nationwide concealed carry of handguns, etc. And Democrats are told that they have to vote for all of it to get the military buildup.

Do you think this strategy would help or harm the cause of getting Democrats to vote for a military buildup?

Quote:

I'll guess that your point isn't really so nonsensical, but it sure sounds like it.
Probably because you read it while thinking the following:

Quote:
Give the GOP credit for one thing: A single issue: Stupidity. Scientists are stupid; liberals are stupid; non-Christians are stupid; gun control is stupid; foreigners are stupid; government workers and every President before Trump are stupid. A single versatile message!
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:28 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017