Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change

[glenn1]

You don't seem to realize that they are two totally separate issues.

1) Carbon taxes on fossil fuels are good because they let the free market work. I'm a big free market supporter so this is a positive good in its own right. Since fossil fuels were first used they have gotten giant handouts from the government by virtue of their ability to pollute the environment without paying for it. It's basically the dictionary definition of a negative externality, and negative externalities should be removed whenever possible.

2) Poor people should be able to afford energy. That's why you give them money.

I imagine we both agree that huge carbon taxes should be levied on fossil fuel companies purely from a capitalism perspective.

Simpler version - @fskimospy wants the rich and middle class to use less energy by making it more expensive and using the extra costs to allow poors to use more energy. Which is exactly why I said before "Seems easier to just say you want to give money to the poors and skip the pretense of doing it via making energy more expensive for everyone and then just giving money to the poors to reduce the burdens of the energy price increases on them."

 

[Darwin333]

It doesn't work because we can't scale a heatsink to planetary size to "fix" the problem. When the only relevant means of heat dissipation is via radiation then the solutions to heat buildup are (A) reduce the heat production caused by terrestial and manmade sources, (2) increase the rate of heat loss by radiation, or (3) decrease the amount of heat produced by incoming sun. 2 and 3 don't seem particularly practical right now from a scientific standpoint for reasons of scale or other potential adverse side effects. #1 would mean we either need to reduce our energy use which might adversely impact the standard of living for lots of folks or involve higher costs for "alternative" energy sources. It might be a tradeoff we're willing to make but just saying it's going to be nothing but beneficial is not being entirely truthful. Asking billions to forgo industrialization and adoption of western lifestyles is anything but a slam dunk. If you're going to propose it anyway then at the very least you should feel the obligation to frame it honestly like Obama did and say something akin to "prices will necessarily skyrocket" to obtain the benefits you seek.

Solar power has become cheaper on a $/kWh basis than fossil fuels in a lot of cases. Wind is often cheaper than fossil fuels as well, especially coal. Obviously, there is the issue of storage or baseline generators that could be spooled up quickly but things like molten salt thermal "batteries" can easily be "piggybacked" into existing power plants to provide power when the sun isn't out or the wind isn't blowing relatively cheaply. We would, and should, be much farther along if we had started when we knew it was a problem but like everything else we just played kick the can. If we were serious back then things like molten salt energy storage, which doesn't require any real newly discovered tech since we've been doing something similar for ages with nuke plants, would be far more developed and much cheaper than today.

As far as developing areas, I'd wager that when you add in the cost of new infrastructure to support fossil fuels that solar/wind and something like molten salt storage would actually be cheaper to build as well as providing cheaper power.

 

[ivwshane]

Simpler version - @fskimospy wants the rich and middle class to use less energy by making it more expensive and using the extra costs to allow poors to use more energy. Which is exactly why I said before "Seems easier to just say you want to give money to the poors and skip the pretense of doing it via making energy more expensive for everyone and then just giving money to the poors to reduce the burdens of the energy price increases on them."

Nice false premise, idiot.


https://www.businessinsider.com/renewable-energy-will-be-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-by-2020-2018-1

 

[fskimospy]

Simpler version - @fskimospy wants the rich and middle class to use less energy by making it more expensive and using the extra costs to allow poors to use more energy. Which is exactly why I said before "Seems easier to just say you want to give money to the poors and skip the pretense of doing it via making energy more expensive for everyone and then just giving money to the poors to reduce the burdens of the energy price increases on them."

No, that would be the wrong version. I am against pointless government subsidies that encourage pollution. I guess you aren't.

If you fell that way it's fine, but as we established in a previous thread that means you should stop lying about caring about the free market because you don't.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Thanks for the article.

http://eidclimate.org/bombshell-new-york-times-debunks-exxonknew-climate-campaign/


"This conclusion – that #EveryoneKnew – is even supported by activists, though they haven’t yet followed their arguments to their logical conclusion.

Groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists and Greenpeace were quick to follow #ExxonKnew with #ShellKnew and #UtilitiesKnew, blaming every company they don’t like while failing to acknowledge their own amnesia on climate change. The idea that energy companies “knew everything there was to know about climate change,” as Bill McKibben likes to say, and that the rest of us didn’t know about it until James Hansen testified before Congress in 1988, “is one of the worst examples we have of the cultural amnesia of this country and especially around this issue,” Rich told NewsHour.

Confirming that Rich’s narrative is a direct threat to the multi-million-dollar campaign they have waged in recent years, anti-energy activists intensely criticized the report before it was even released."

...................................................


"For several hours after the report was released, the umbrella group for the #ExxonKnew campaign dedicated its Twitter page to criticizing Rich’s narrative and retweeting others who were scrambling to control the damage.

Rich’s story ultimately concludes that it’s too simplistic to point your finger at one company, industry, or political party for inaction on climate change, which is a complex global problem. The issue was receiving mainstream media attention and was the subject of multiple Congressional hearings in the 1970s and 1980s, long before the supposed “disinformation campaign” that environmental activists cite ever began.

It may not have been the intent of New York Times Magazine to throw cold water on a fringe environmental activists campaign, but the damage has clearly been done. The attempt at damage control from the #ExxonKnew campaign is only beginning."

 

[glenn1]

Solar power has become cheaper on a $/kWh basis than fossil fuels in a lot of cases. Wind is often cheaper than fossil fuels as well, especially coal. Obviously, there is the issue of storage or baseline generators that could be spooled up quickly but things like molten salt thermal "batteries" can easily be "piggybacked" into existing power plants to provide power when the sun isn't out or the wind isn't blowing relatively cheaply. We would, and should, be much farther along if we had started when we knew it was a problem but like everything else we just played kick the can. If we were serious back then things like molten salt energy storage, which doesn't require any real newly discovered tech since we've been doing something similar for ages with nuke plants, would be far more developed and much cheaper than today.

As far as developing areas, I'd wager that when you add in the cost of new infrastructure to support fossil fuels that solar/wind and something like molten salt storage would actually be cheaper to build as well as providing cheaper power.

It might be cheaper in some cases and is likely more expensive in others. That's my point, even in best case scenario now in August 2018 it's impossible for 'renewables' to meet every use case and it's counterproductive to attempt to force it where it doesn't fit or before the technology is ripe. Automobiles were invented in 1808 yet didn't replace horses until the early 20th century once the economics were there and the car was a superior solution to the horse for the average user. Alternative energy is the same way, if you try to force things along it would be no more successful than attempting to force the conversion away from horses in the early 19th century. It wouldn't have mattered to the adoption rates of cars if you had made horses artificially expensive by adding a "manure tax" to them any more than adding a carbon tax would now. People use renewables where they make sense and won't where they don't. If you don't have a garage to plug in your Nissan Leaf and your commute is 100 miles each way then it won't matter how much of a carbon tax you impose, you are still going to buy a gas powered car. If you want to do something to help now then do things that will help large amounts of people broadly, such as heavily incentivizing remote work/telework so they don't need to commute as much. That makes a shit ton more sense than trying to punish folks for owning an SUV.

No, that would be the wrong version. I am against pointless government subsidies that encourage pollution. I guess you aren't.

If you fell that way it's fine, but as we established in a previous thread that means you should stop lying about caring about the free market because you don't.

LOL, so in your world unless you support a carbon tax then you're "against the free market." Gotcha.

 

[ivwshane]

It might be cheaper in some cases and is likely more expensive in others. That's my point, even in best case scenario now in August 2018 it's impossible for 'renewables' to meet every use case and it's counterproductive to attempt to force it where it doesn't fit or before the technology is ripe. Automobiles were invented in 1808 yet didn't replace horses until the early 20th century once the economics were there and the car was a superior solution to the horse for the average user. Alternative energy is the same way, if you try to force things along it would be no more successful than attempting to force the conversion away from horses in the early 19th century. It wouldn't have mattered to the adoption rates of cars if you had made horses artificially expensive by adding a "manure tax" to them any more than adding a carbon tax would now. People use renewables where they make sense and won't where they don't. If you don't have a garage to plug in your Nissan Leaf and your commute is 100 miles each way then it won't matter how much of a carbon tax you impose, you are still going to buy a gas powered car. If you want to do something to help now then do things that will help large amounts of people broadly, such as heavily incentivizing remote work/telework so they don't need to commute as much. That makes a shit ton more sense than trying to punish folks for owning an SUV.



LOL, so in your world unless you support a carbon tax then you're "against the free market." Gotcha.

And now the straw man comes out.

Fucking idiot.

 

[fskimospy]

LOL, so in your world unless you support a carbon tax then you're "against the free market." Gotcha.

Like I said before I'm fine with whatever means you want to use to stop subsidizing fossil fuels by allowing them to take advantage of negative externalities without compensation. Allowing companies to inflict harm on people without compensation means they aren't paying the true cost of producing their product. If you're pro-free market then you want those costs accounted for.

In other contexts I'm sure you completely support this, it's just you're too committed to your position here to concede anything that makes fossil fuels in an even worse position than they already are.

 

[Amused]

This shit is hilarious.

It is a direct repeat of the tobacco companies campaign to spread disinformation and muddy the health information on smoking.

That lasted 3 decades. All the way up into the 90s people were still being good little useful idiots and insisting smoking didn't cause cancer. That it was all a big conspiracy by anti-smokers.

The same actors. The same useful idiots spreading their message like Jim Jones followers.

And the same result: Direct denial of science itself.

 

[Zorba]

This shit is hilarious.

It is a direct repeat of the tobacco companies campaign to spread disinformation and muddy the health information on smoking.

That lasted 3 decades. All the way up into the 90s people were still being good little useful idiots and insisting smoking didn't cause cancer. That it was all a big conspiracy by anti-smokers.

The same actors. The same useful idiots spreading their message like Jim Jones followers.

And the same result: Direct denial of science itself.

I'd say this is even worse than pro-tobacco people, because the link is easy to explain with basic physics. AFAIK, linking tobacco to health issues was more correlation (over-whelming correlation) without an easy to explain causation link.

 

[nickqt]

In this thread:

People who understand that climate scientists for the past 30+ years were correct.

And.

People who know it's a scam that climate scientists use to get insanely wealthy, by maligning the truthtellers who sell fossil fuels.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It doesn't work because we can't scale a heatsink to planetary size to "fix" the problem. When the only relevant means of heat dissipation is via radiation then the solutions to heat buildup are (A) reduce the heat production caused by terrestial and manmade sources, (2) increase the rate of heat loss by radiation, or (3) decrease the amount of heat produced by incoming sun. 2 and 3 don't seem particularly practical right now from a scientific standpoint for reasons of scale or other potential adverse side effects. #1 would mean we either need to reduce our energy use which might adversely impact the standard of living for lots of folks or involve higher costs for "alternative" energy sources. It might be a tradeoff we're willing to make but just saying it's going to be nothing but beneficial is not being entirely truthful. Asking billions to forgo industrialization and adoption of western lifestyles is anything but a slam dunk. If you're going to propose it anyway then at the very least you should feel the obligation to frame it honestly like Obama did and say something akin to "prices will necessarily skyrocket" to obtain the benefits you seek.

Renewables are more cost-effective than nuclear power and competitive with fossil fuels in many areas. Heat sinks? Why? There's not a problem which requires something like that. What is needed is a restoration to the equilibrium we've disturbed by trapping heat. Eliminate greenhouse gasses in time and the system will return to what it was. You created a false representation of the current state of the art and create a bogeyman "forego industrialization". Just implement existing technologies in most areas. Prices will not necessarily skyrocket, they may come down with economies of scale kicking in and

I'll tell the folks in third world countries who are reduced to eating lemurs that they should forgo industrializing and accept their bronze age lifestyle so that folks like you can address "global warming." I'm sure they'll be fine with starving to death to keep temperatures from going up a couple degrees.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2010/09/madagascar/

Eating lemurs and accept living in the bronze age as if that's the only option they can ever have? Nonsense.

Next up- Pedophiles?

You show a distinct inability to grasp the fundamentals with your statements.

 

[Paratus]

Now appearing online from the NYT magazine, the tragic story of our dithering and inaction:



What is there to say? I weep for Mother Gaia.

Amazing article.

It’s funny, sad, and disturbing all at the same time. Especially how the fossil fuel industry basically understood what was going on and didn’t really start peddling disinformation until 1989.

The chance to enact meaningful measures to prevent climate change was vanishing, but the industry had just begun. In October 1989, scientists allied with the G.C.C. began to be quoted in national publications, giving an issue that lacked controversy a convenient fulcrum. “Many respected scientists say the available evidence doesn’t warrant the doomsday warnings,” was the caveat that began to appear in articles on climate change.

The G.C.C. disbanded in 2002 after the defection of various members who were embarrassed by its tactics. But Exxon (now Exxon Mobil) continued its disinformation campaign for another half decade.

 

[compuwiz1]

@Perknose
Dave, I've been a bit of a jerk in your thread. For this, I apologize.
Do I believe in climate change? Yes I do. Do I agree with the way some people think they can solve it? No. I'm a proponent of personal responsibility, for being good stewards of the planet. I disagree that growing government, more regulations and taxes is going to solve it. I don't think throwing money at it, via taxation, is the answer. You will always have people who don't give a shit how they pollute, or litter. I do applaud you for caring.

 

[Vic]

Thank you for helping create the political fiasco, sheeple. Don't join cults...ever. This whole thing has always been, and will always be, leftist fear mongering, while trying to extract money and raise taxes. Here is a clue: No amount of money is going to change what mother nature wants to do. If you think I'm wrong, try bribing tornadoes. Fuckme running!
There is a Trump cult and there is a climate change cult. Both are misguided.
Again- Climate doesn't care about money and it's going to do what it's going to do,with, or without us. Don't make your sucker bets and stop listening to people who are paid to make you a believer. IOW..don't be an idiot.

It's funny how your argument contains no logic, just namecalling and paranoid rhetoric, but they're the sheeple.

 

[Vic]

Al Gore is a fraud. Has been, and will always be. He's a shit salesman, who had a convincing mouthful of samples, enough to get some wealthy people onboard, to help spread the scam. I don't buy narratives, spread by politicians, for financial gains, which is exactly what that scam was designed to do. It's worked marvelously well. Check your nose. It probably has one those rings in it.

Al Gore isn't a scientist. His opinions regarding global warming have nothing to with the actual science of global warming.

 

[mikeymikec]

@Perknose
Dave, I've been a bit of a jerk in your thread. For this, I apologize.
Do I believe in climate change? Yes I do. Do I agree with the way some people think they can solve it? No. I'm a proponent of personal responsibility, for being good stewards of the planet. I disagree that growing government, more regulations and taxes is going to solve it. I don't think throwing money at it, via taxation, is the answer. You will always have people who don't give a shit how they pollute, or litter. I do applaud you for caring.

Considering that money is a huge reason why businesses pollute in the first place, IMO it's illogical to think that money-related solutions can't also have the opposite effect on the problem.

If businesses believed in "personal responsibility", they'd pay their fair share in taxes instead of avoiding them. They wouldn't choose the cheaper methods of production that pollute more and they'd properly dispose of their waste. It's therefore illogical to think that regulating their behaviour won't help.

It's also illogical to say that man-made climate change is "leftist fear-mongering" while also saying that we should be good stewards of the planet. You either believe that man-made climate change is a thing (ie. you believe the scientists and embrace reality as the finest minds have quantified it) and the baggage that comes with it being that responsible people should do what they can about it, or you believe it isn't a thing and people should pollute to their hearts' content because it doesn't make any difference anyway, and ignore our history and scientific evidence in the process.

 

[Thebobo]

Here is my problem with some of you "supposed" bleeding heart liberals, including some of my own family: You will go on and on about climate change, global warming, etc. BUT, you have no interest in cleaning up the problems in your own back yards, or fronts. You will drive right past 20 homeless people, and you won't roll down your window, throw 'em a shirt, tooth brush, or a sandwich, but you're oh, so concerned about the planet. F@ck you guys. Your arguments are not valid! What you are, is a bunch of political tools, pretending to care.

We got past 1918 and it wasn't the end of the world.

I do care.

 

[Perknose]

@Perknose
Dave, I've been a bit of a jerk in your thread. For this, I apologize.
Do I believe in climate change? Yes I do. Do I agree with the way some people think they can solve it? No. I'm a proponent of personal responsibility, for being good stewards of the planet. I disagree that growing government, more regulations and taxes is going to solve it. I don't think throwing money at it, via taxation, is the answer. You will always have people who don't give a shit how they pollute, or litter. I do applaud you for caring.

Spoken like a gentleman!

 

[compuwiz1]

Spoken like a gentleman!

We've been here a long time, brother. I will always love you, even if we disagree at times. Thank you!

 

[glenn1]

Like I said before I'm fine with whatever means you want to use to stop subsidizing fossil fuels by allowing them to take advantage of negative externalities without compensation. Allowing companies to inflict harm on people without compensation means they aren't paying the true cost of producing their product. If you're pro-free market then you want those costs accounted for.

In other contexts I'm sure you completely support this, it's just you're too committed to your position here to concede anything that makes fossil fuels in an even worse position than they already are.

And you're too committed to gimping fossil fuels to realize that a carbon tax is highly regressive and would disproportionately hurt the poor you claim to care about, or that just passing back the carbon tax revenues to subsidize the poor to buy energy they can no longer afford after your carbon taxes is simply undoing what you just did with the carbon taxes in the first place. While I know the majority of your position is just based upon virtue signalling rather than what's practical or what "renewable energy" solutions will actually meet people's needs the marketplace itself will actually care. Poors who need to commute 80 miles to their $10/hour waitress jobs in the city aren't going to buy electric vehicles to meet your desire to reduce carbon emissions if they don't have a place to plug in their car or the range won't get them to work or back. OTOH if you did things like I've suggested such as heavily push telework so the call center worker didn't need to commute 40 miles into the city then you might actually start making progress.

 

[fskimospy]

And you're too committed to gimping fossil fuels to realize that a carbon tax is highly regressive and would disproportionately hurt the poor you claim to care about, or that just passing back the carbon tax revenues to subsidize the poor to buy energy they can no longer afford after your carbon taxes is simply undoing what you just did with the carbon taxes in the first place.

None of this is true. If you want to claim that energy subsidies for the poor would be so large as to undo a carbon tax then provide credible links that say as much.

You’re now just inventing figures and claims because you don’t actually have any good arguments against a carbon tax other than you don’t like it. Conclusion -> evidence.

While I know the majority of your position is just based upon virtue signalling rather than what's practical or what "renewable energy" solutions will actually meet people's needs the marketplace itself will actually care. Poors who need to commute 80 miles to their $10/hour server jobs in the city aren't going to buy electric vehicles to meet your desire to reduce carbon emissions if they don't have a place to plug in their car or the range won't get them to work or back. OTOH if you did things like I've suggested such as heavily push telework so the call center worker didn't need to commute 40 miles into the city then you might actually start making progress.

You already made it abundantly clear you don’t care what the market thinks.

 

[glenn1]

None of this is true. If you want to claim that energy subsidies for the poor would be so large as to undo a carbon tax then provide credible links that say as much.

You’re now just inventing figures and claims because you don’t actually have any good arguments against a carbon tax other than you don’t like it. Conclusion -> evidence.



You already made it abundantly clear you don’t care what the market thinks.

Are you pushing for taxes to cover every negative externality of any product? If so then a lot of cities will owe a shit ton of money for the light pollution and other externalities they produce. Or is somehow fossil fuels the one and only thing you believe we should "care about what the market thinks"? And are you bothering to consider the net balance of positive and negative externalities of products such as fossil fuels, such as that while they "emit carbon" they also have the positive externality of allowing billions to enjoy standards of living above what was typical in the 18th century?

 

[compuwiz1]

The real problem, is people wearing speedos and bikinis to the beach, who shouldn't be wearing them. It causes brain overheats to the normies. Then all that excessive heat goes up into the atmosphere and creates mountains of gooble de beloved patriot.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Don't have a carbon tax if that's the sticking point. Instead divert funds from the military in a Manhattan style program to research, develop and deploy renewables and better storage solutions. That's a matter of national security as well since it's likely our grid can be taken down at need by cyberwarfare.

Public funding of research can be tied to condition where those who participate are paid well for discoveries, but all IP remains the property of the government who license out to private companies which compete with each other in th market to manufacture whatever product is developed. This includes technologies for electric or carbon neutral fuel sources for vehicles.