You are quite aware that “we” are talking about a lot of different solutions.
Where’s yours?
That’s true…China does spend more on renewable energy than the US does. They spend more on non-renewable dirty energy than the US does as well. They USE more energy than the US does. One of the big differentiators between China and the US wrt renewables is hydro. Over a million GWh for China verse a touch over 200k GWh for the US. That’s a HUGE difference, and one we will never close the gap on since we are building zero new hydro plants and even decommissioning some of the existing. The US actually has more wind powered generation than China and only a bit less solar. We beat then in geo-thermal, mostly because China doesn’t seem to use this much. But the big one is hydro.
As for them spending more, well, a couple of things there. First off, as I noted, they spend more on all types of new generation, dirty and clean. That’s because they are still building capabilities and expanding coverage, while the US isn’t really doing that. The US has a mature grid, and a lot of what we spend is really swapping out older systems for newer, not building new capacity. So, it’s kind of an apples to oranges comparison.
Far from the US ‘fuck all about climate change’, we are the number 2 nation wrt installed and working renewable energy systems. We spend the 2nd most (not that I think this stat means shit, but since you used it I figured what the hell).
It saddens me that China gets such a pass without scrutinizing what the stats actually mean, or WHY they are doing what they are doing. They are tossed out (using per capita when it suits or using the gross figures as you did when that suits the narrative) as a foil to the US, showing how much better they are and how much worse we are without thinking of why the numbers are what they are, or what the actual CCP goals are in the broader context.
I think we should concentrate more on nuclear energy, and not on solar or wind, which will not be more than niche applications. “We” should be talking about that.
I may have mentioned it a couple of times, including in the part of my post that you quoted. Funny that you missed it.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, in the mid-90s, SUVs became insanely popular out in suburbia and beyond.
And there was a backlash from urban liberals, and SUVs became the hated symbol of crass materialism/capitalist consumption, a hallmark of suburban sprawl, basically, everything that was Wrong With America.
The rest of us just shrugged and said, “Whatever.”
Then Global Warming came along, and, just coincidentally, SUVs were the biggest culprits.
Then Al Gore came along, and he told me I needed to be using less energy to stave off Global Warming; this coming from a multi-millionaire, whose twenty-room mansion (with year-round heated outdoor swimming pool) uses more energy in a week than I do in a year in my two-bedroom apartment.
A guy who flies in a private jet to speaking engagements, travels in armored SUV motorcades…but I’m the one who needs to make sacrifices to save the global ecology.
Yeah. All animals are equal, but some more so than others.
Global warming is just another tool of the socialist left, being used in their attempt to subvert standing institutions and force free people to submit to ever-increasing levels of government control, by people who think that the world as depicted in Orwell’s 1984 would be a great place to live in, and that the Soviet Union was paradise on Earth.
Actually, and it remains a straw man that bit about giving China a pass, I did look at the cite from Magiver that claimed that China was indeed making more coal energy plants.
But.
He did not notice that in the article that even in China they realize that the coal guys used loopholes, that are being removed, to build many of those energy plants; While China is starting to produce more of their energy with renewals. The article then reports that many of those coal plants are or will go idle or become failures due to overproduction. I think we have to blame that result on classic communist mismanagement.
But as I said, their selfishness is what I count more with, and preventing a coming refugee disaster or seeing people complain more about immediate contamination is more important to the powers over there, what I got from the article is that workers will also get coal plant construction jobs in the meantime, and that is also cynically important for them, specially more more local authorities. That the plants will not be as useful later is a feature, not a bug.
I didn’t, actually–and I’m also a strong proponent of nuclear power, much to the chagrin of some of my greenie associates.
I just didn’t realize that nuclear power is the One True Solution in your thinking. If you’re annoyed at people supposedly hammering only one solution (with which you happen to disagree) it seems odd that you would yourself be dedicated to only one solution.
Instead of working on multiple fronts for a broader, more systemic set of progressive approaches to old, failed, and failing power generation and transmission paradigms. One which could easily include the solar and wind options you scoff at as well as nuke, hydro, and geothermal approaches. And one which also includes acknowledging the China problem as well as our own.
I can’t put in a nuke plant in my backyard, but I did put in solar and home batteries. I have to admit, it wasn’t motivated by global warming or environmental concerns - I just think it’s cool to be able to go off grid.
This talking point is almost older than the internet. 
It is clear you missed post#102, there are plenty of conservative reasons to avoid continuing to treat our atmosphere as a dump.
blinks
Okay, do I need to explain what “per capita” means? :rolleyes:
Awesome! You do realize that this is not the mainstream republican position, right? No, the mainstream republican position is embodied not by “Global warming exists, the solutions the democrats are floating aren’t great and we should try something else”, but rather by the post ExTank made. Complete ignorance of the facts, conspiracy theories declaring that a massive field of research over decades is nothing more than an attempt at a socialist new world order, and personalization to Al Gore (oh my god who the fuck cares about Al Gore in 2018). In the rare case that you can get a republican representative to even admit that human-caused global warming is a thing - most of them will not - almost none of them will propose anything resembling a solution. And the actual republican leadership on climate? James Inhofe, Scott Pruitt, Paul Broun. The most radical denialists of the bunch.
I wonder - do you have any response to ExTank? I feel like your disagreement with him is likely considerably more significant than your disagreement with me or andros, and his claims are much more in need of correction than anything we’re posting.
You say strawman, as you ironically give them a pass by not looking into the claims or who ‘the coal guys’ are who use those loopholes. Did it never occur to you that many are aligned with (or just plain in) the CCP? Also, claims that China will, this time, start to enforce their environmental regulations should be met with just a touch of skepticism…which is fully lacking in your post here. As is the claim that all or even some percentage of these new(ish) coal plants will just be idle. IF that is indeed the case, I agree, from our perspective that would be a feature, not a bug. However, the reality is that China consumes more coal than the rest of the world…combined. So, I’m a bit skeptical of the claim that those coal plants are now or will soon be idle.
Yes, hence the reply.
I think we both understand what “per capita” means. What at least one of us may not yet understand is that it is irrelevant. China currently emits more GHG than the US and the EU put together as a total amount. As their standard of living continues to rise, their per capita rate is likely to rise as well as their total amount. So that’s what “per capita” means - it is a strawman trying to deflect from the fact that the liberal solutions will not address the elephant in the room.
He is reinforcing one of my points. Al Gore* allegedly believes that AGW is a serious and mounting problem, which must be addressed by someone else. The hoi polloi are the ones who need to give up their cars, have ICEs phased out, while he flies about in his private plane lecturing the rest of us on how we need to scale back our lifestyles. “We” doesn’t mean him, of course.
As I said, if the problem of AGW is so urgent and important, why not act like it? Since he doesn’t act like it, and his solutions aren’t likely to work, it becomes that much harder to believe that he really thinks this.
Regards,
Shodan
*You know - Al Gore, who believes the temperature at the center of the earth is millions of degrees and will melt drills. But fortunately, we can now pursue geo-thermal because that problem has been solved. Unfortunately No, the temperature is not millions of degrees, and the problem of drilling to the earth’s core is no easier now than it was before.
And Al Gore, who says
(cite) even though the cost of solar is much higher, and will not scale up to meet our energy needs. That Al Gore.
A perfect example of well-meant but not very well-thought out ecology measures:
You’re correct; I did not wade through a pile of poop on the off-chance of finding a gem.
Doesn’t change the fact the AGW narrative began as a leftist/anti-capitalist platform, then conveniently morphed into just plain ol’ Climate Change, or whatever the label de jour currently is to sell it to the [del]proletariat[/del] masses.
@Shodan
Step one is recognizing, “There is a problem”. If the republican party can’t get that far (and, let’s be clear, it really can’t at the moment), all the discussion of how to resolve it, all the discussion of “liberal hypocrisy” when it comes to solutions (oh my fucking god why does anyone give even half a shit about Al Gore in 2018 the man hasn’t been in the public eye for a fucking decade!), whether the proposed solutions are valid or not - all that shit does not matter. If you fundamentally cannot agree, “Global warming is real, primarily caused by humans, and the consequences are ongoing and overwhelmingly negative”, you’re still stuck at stage one, and any discussion of solutions is a waste of everyone’s time because we can’t even agree on the problem.
So again, I ask. Do you have any (actual) response to someone on your side of the aisle who clearly disagrees far more heavily than you than I do? Like, you and I clearly agree - global warming is real, it’s caused by humans, it’s bad, we need to do something. ExTank hasn’t gotten that far. And yet, you seem to insist that you and him are in agreement, while you and I are stuck at loggerheads. As a measure of basic good faith, will you please say something, anything, to the guy who thinks global warming is a socialist plot to destroy America? Or rather, anything that isn’t “Yeah, I agree with this guy”?
I’m talking to you about this on the basis that you’re in agreement that global warming is real and a problem, and that your problems are methods and liberal hypocrisy. That might be on topic, kinda. If you share ExTank’s position, then I can stop talking to you and start talking about you, because the only useful thing a post denying the science of climate change has to offer a thread about why people deny climate change is a psychoanalytical window into the headspace of the kind of person who would make a post like that - that’s literally what the thread is about. For example, I know that many people who deny climate change believe silly conspiracy theories that are easily debunked by even a basic look at the history of climatology. Go ahead, guess how I figured that one out. 
GIGO already was kind enough to explain why Al Gore, in a discussion about global warming, is a gigantic red herring. Nobody worth listening to cares about Al Gore. It’s a silly distraction - talk about the actual science. If you think it’s a good argument… Well, see above.
Now, to address one quick thing…
Imagine that you and another guy share a house on the lake. You both dump trash into the lake, and slowly but surely the water starts to go brown, and the fish start dying. Now, you ask your neighbor, “Hey, would you please stop throwing your trash in the lake?” He says no. Does this mean it’s a good idea for you to keep dumping trash in the lake, or would it be better if the lake was being polluted more slowly because you didn’t keep dumping trash in the lake? Or would it be better if you just shrugged and started diverting sewage into the lake as well?
You and I cannot affect the climate policies of China. We don’t live there, we don’t vote there, and I’m not sure how much voting there matters to begin with. We can affect the climate policies of the US. We can slow the bleeding on our end. Saying “it doesn’t matter because China” is silly.
And it is really disappointing to see that talking points like this one are still maintained past its due date.
Really, the point Al Gore has been making is about becoming carbon neutral, the issue for him involves that rich people like him can consume as they do, but in turn they have to fund efforts, like for example planting more trees in a forest, that counter the larger than average amount of carbon he uses. And so on for others, he is not demanding a draconian change in lifestyle.
Of course other environmentalists do think that his angle to deal with the issue is not doing enough, but then again that is not what he is insisting all do.
Imagine for a moment that you and I both pollute your theoretical lake. I dump in 1 gallon of pollutants a year but there are only 2 of us in my house. You dump in 5 gallons a year, but there are 20 people in your house. From the lakes perspective, who is polluting the lake more? How do you suppose I’m going to feel if I’m being asked to sacrifice my productivity to restrict that 1 gallon while you are given a pass for a decade or so (with no enforcement on the back end if you decide, fuck it, you aren’t going to change) to continue to pollute at 5 gallons…increasing to perhaps 6 or even 10 gallons down the road? That’s going to be the key analogy you will need to fight if you want to get conservatives on board…and it’s one that the other side seems really, really bad at addressing to anyone who isn’t one of the faithful. Instead, they talk about per capita…which is pretty obviously a method to score points, but has the unfortunate effect of telling conservatives that those making the comparison and using a cherry picked stat to do so aren’t REALLY serious about this climate change stuff, but instead just want to score points through distraction. After all, from the lakes perspective that 5 gallons of pollutant are more than the 1 I’m putting in.
I also think Shodan DID give you a viable solution (well, perhaps not viable considering this is another sticking point)…nuclear. It’s the only actual technology we have that scales up and could really make a difference wrt CO2. And we can’t do it. Often it’s environmentalist types who will go on and on about global warming while being anti-nuke…which, again, calls into question how vital this all is, from a conservatives perspective. After all, if those who really know that global warming is happening aren’t screaming from the rafters for nuclear, aren’t pushing for nuclear as hard as they can, how seriously are they, really? And we aren’t seeing a lot of folks really, honestly pushing for nuclear. There are, of course, reasons for that…but you can plausibly connect the dots to show that some of the hype about global warming is just that…hype. That even the true believers REALLY don’t think it’s that much of a threat because if they did we’d be in all stops mode, bringing out a technology we know will do the job. Instead, they are trying to score points about per capita use and handwaving away China’s (and India’s to be honest) explosion in CO2 emissions over the last decade while pointing out that the US does, to paraphrase, fuck all.
The above narrative isn’t my view on this stuff. I think global warming is serious, I think the US should lead, not follow, and I also think that green technologies will actually be a benefit for the US if we develop them properly (and manage to have the Chinese not steal them all, somehow). But I also see the lack of commitment wrt nuclear as a puzzling aspect, as is the almost monomaniacal fixation on wind and solar as the be all end all solutions, when we know they won’t scale up to meet even our current needs, and will have huge environmental impacts if we did manage to build them out sufficiently to even try. That along with this tendency to handwave away China’s issues and the fact that they are pumping out so much CO2 (as well as other toxic crap) and the pass they were given at Paris even makes me sometimes question the commitment to doing something. Frankly, I think that, in the end we are just going to have to live with the consequences and hope that our technology can bail us out…and that this will end up costing us some fairly hefty dollars as well as impacting millions of lives. Hopefully I’m wrong about that, as we will all be paying the price for this stupidity.
Who said I didn’t believe in global warming? See XT’s post 157 for a nice summary of my general feelings on the issue. There are solutions to global warming; which leftys vehemently reject out-of-hand time-after-time.
My post addressed the narrative, and, now that you’ve brought it up, the identity politics the left immediately devolves to wrt anyone who isn’t onboard/in lock-step with the Party line.
Thank you for confirming my suspicion about exactly what you are with the above quote*; I will now report to Gulag, Comrade Cadet, to begin my long, arduous task of learning GoodThink while laboring in service to the Glory of The Party.
- j/k; I’ve known exactly what you are for some time now; I routinely wonder if I truly am insane, when I repeatedly click on “show this post” expecting, hoping, that somehow this time I won’t in some way or an other be insulted or belittled.
Hey, not my problem that you end up tossing under the bus other conservatives that see that there is no reason to fall for the misguided propaganda.
Also, that insulting toss reminds me about how many like you constantly remind us that to properly convince the other side one should not toss insults to the ones that “do not understand”, who are once again conservatives that do not see it like you do.
Only that there is no evidence whatsoever for what you posted here.
From the lake’s perspective, the guy who’s dumping in a half-gallon is dumping in more than any of the guys who are dumping in only a quarter-gallon. And from anyone else’s perspective, too. Why does it matter that all of the less-polluting people happen to live in the same house?