And those that don’t die and live comfortably during the winter should thank fossil fuel companies and engineers because they provide the overwhelming majority of the world’s energy needs. It is staggering how much energy is created by fossil fuels compared to renewables. Fossil fuel use is rising, climate related deaths are falling, and emissions are decreasing. No further action needed let these trends play themselves out.
:rolleyes:
In earlier times people would tank the woodsman for the comfy fire, nowadays we do not bother to thank the woodsman.
As you should notice, even the woodsman knows that even though he would deserve thanks for the past deeds of his forefathers, progress does not mind dismissing more polluting forms of fuels. One will then thank the new sources of energy. Sure, you can thanks the fossil fuels now, but it is a very very lousy argument to use against change. Specially when the change is a needed one.
And why is that the emission are decreasing?
Yeah, coal as a fossil fuel should not come back, and while natural gas helps, we should concentrate on reducing its use also. So we should continue with reducing the emissions and I do think that eventually we will realize how loony tunes it was to burn fossil fuels when instead of burning them we should see them as prime material to not burn and use them in other applications. We will also need a lot of carbon turned into graphite once we reach the grapheme or diamond ages.
Oh time traveler, what would you have suggested instead? Are you seriously faulting people from the Industrial Revolution to the 1990’s for not using enough solar arrays and very large, high-efficiency wind turbines? Those technologies didn’t exist in any type of distributed form. Coal fired and hydroelectric powerplants plus other fossil fuels and wood were the only game in town for much of that period. “Environmentalists” shut down most nuclear power plant development in the U.S. decades ago due to ignorance, fear and superstitions that would make any climate change denier proud.
What else did you expect them to do? For that matter, what do you realistically expect people to do today. Solar and wind cannot meet even the current energy demands let alone scale up fast enough for predicted population growth in the current 3rd world. It might be able to in the future given an extremely large and distributed effort worldwide but that is still decades away. You can’t power the U.S. or China with those as the main source of energy right now. They are just supplements that have their own costs and drawbacks. The environmentalists screwed the pooch at least in the U.S. when they opposed the development of more nuclear power plants because of radiation or something like that you know man.
Did entrepreneurs and innovation put the woodsman out of work or did the government point their guns at him. You can roll your eyes at the warmth fossil fuels provide to billions while you enjoy their energy as well.
The fact is renewable energy is puny, even with the crony deals happening all over the globe.
I don’t seek to allocate the world’s resources according to my wishes. If carbon is bid away from energy uses and into graphene applications, I’m fine with that if it occurs on the market.
[snip]
You are seriously dismissing what I did say. I do accept that technology does change and whatever or whoever we tank will be the current ones or the up and coming ones.
The point that you missed by building that straw man was that it is really silly to keep thanking a technology when new ones are getting better and getting cheaper. (As pointed many times before, once one adds the real costs of polluting the atmosphere alternative fuels were cheaper yesterday)
And as I pointed many times before: I’m in favor of nuclear power but on that the sad reality is that:
- It is not only environmentalists, but a super majority of the people that show up in surveys are against nuclear power, it is NIMBY what needs to be countered here.
- Another big stopping issue is that places like France show that to get a lot of people to go for nuclear power a lot of measures that smell like socialism were used. So, many conservatives should look at the beam in their eyes first.
“On the market” …
It’s always fun to read your satires, Farnaby, though smiley-faces are called for so Dopers know you’re joking. Of course you’re aware of External Costs and know that government must step in and [del]place a tax on combustible carbon[/del] steal the earnings of noble Job-Creating carbon entrepreneurs at “gunpoint” with threats of torture and mayhem.
Another straw man, must be a sale at Costco.
“What possible use are balloons?” Benjamin Franklin responded cryptically: “What use is a newborn baby?”
And Coal and Oil got trounced by less polluting Natural Gas. Solar and wind are also getting cheaper; and before the market was used to deal with issues like acid rain and other forms of pollution with tools like cap-n-trade. Of course the propaganda and funding of many Republican politicians turned that tool into “a tool of the devil”.
Nuclear.
Solar.
Gas.
Oil.
Conservation.
Geothermal.
Hydroelectric.
Innovation?
By all of these means there is a path to meet the needs of all without wrecking the atmosphere. There is still a place for fossil fuels in the equation, because there must be. We can’t just drop them without dire consequences, but their use must be reduced as rapidly as we can manage.
I’m aware of what economists call external costs, but I’m not aware that once something is stamped with that label nothing can occur with technological advances and jurisprudence that can remove it. I’m aware that government courts are ill-equipped to deal with damages associated with CO2 emissions.
Coal was trounced by the government. Oil is still a large supplier of energy as is natural gas, another fossil fuel. Are you hitching your wagon to natural gas?
I’m not going to watch a government media documentary.
Historically speaking what I have seen is that courts usually do defer to science, of course lately it is clear that Republicans will influence and change the courts more to their liking. Technologically speaking it is still more economical to agree to standards to deal with issues like Acid Rain, in that case the government regulations did not end the world as many critics claimed it would.
That bit about coal being trounced by the government deserves a “wrong” QI Klaxon.
Even hostile to regulation and skeptics of climate change government efforts guys at the libertarian Reason Magazine did notice:
And that is because they read a very important recent study:
That would be PBS’s Frontline, that has won a total of 75 Emmy Awards and 18 Peabody Awards.
Of course, you keep on relying on corporate media (or fake news) that knew who butters their toast and so they did not talk much at all about climate change during the election.
What Frontline did was to point at how the influence of big money from the fossil fuel industry has corrupted American politics (specially the Republicans) and it needs to be seen to understand why is that that while most people do want the government to intervene on this issue, government has not been doing much of what is needed.
While it’s true that a large majority of PBS funding comes from individual members, private corporations and universities, and non-profit organizations, it is also true that some of their funding does come from the malicious communistic haters running Washington D.C. I’m afraid you’ll need a cite if your claim is that heavily-armed government jackboots do not force PBS to publish anti-liberty lies.
Again, are you hitching your wagon to natural gas? I hope you are aware that natural gas is a fossil fuel. Perhaps the “natural” made you think it was ok because of your trips to Whole Foods.
Very early in the industrial revolution government courts abandoned their protection of property rights. Instead they permitted a certain amount of pollution because it was viewed as a necessary byproduct of economic progress. This is a failure of government, not capitalism. There is a good chance that if courts were to adequately recognize property rights, there would be less pollution. Compare pollution in the leftist’s paradise of the Soviet Union vs. the relatively free market U.S.
The go-to essay on libertarianism and pollution explains this.
:rolleyes:
You are abusing so much of the straw man that even he is growing a brain just to complain to you.
Read it again, I’m only pointing out how wrong you were about why Coal was trounced, and I also did say that we also should work to eventually limit the use of natural gas.
And you have to deal with the libertarians at Reason magazine, but the context should show that I do not rely on them for advice on what to do (Again, only on the reason why coal was trounced) and until there is a libertarian government it is better to go for what has worked before in the matter of controlling pollution.
https://www3.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/reports/emissions_reductions.html
Red herring. Environmentalists can tell youhow wrong the Soviet Union was, the problem was that while on paper both the USA and the USSR passed laws to prevent the degradation of the environment the problem in the countries controlled by a communist party the enforcement of those laws was in practice “optional”. And even I agree that it had to do a lot on a lack of separation of powers and a good way to respect the rights of people that were most affected under those regimes. What I have seen is reports that do point at a lot of jobs and well being of Americans that we have as a result of enforcing the environmental laws and really? Do you think that making an effort to prevent pollution must make you a leftist communist?
You are indeed for sure relying on propaganda from climate change contrarians like Christopher Monckton.
And that link goes to a good explanation of how this attempt at painting the efforts to limit climate change as being communistic, and/or relying on people like Monkton is a very silly thing. That BTW comes from Processor Bickmore who is a conservative republican scientist at BYU.
:dubious: You seem to have missed the crucial point that natural gas produces much less carbon emissions than other fossil fuels. That’s why, from a climate change mitigation standpoint, natural gas preferable in some respects to other fossil fuels, even if the long-term sustainable goal (as GIGObuster notes) is to limit its use.
Very prudent, since that would expose you to actual facts and science, which are often irreversibly destructive to climate deniers’ imaginary version of reality. You can’t be too careful!
Considering the trillions of tax dollars spent on making the middle east a smoking hole in the effort to keep cheap access to fossil fuels, they are as much of a tax burden without the benefit of energy independence or climate change mitigation.