I am fine with battery electric cars competing on an equal footing with traditional cars, but not the governmentThen why not do both?
I didnt link all scientists to neo-luddites, just the moronic ones in the OP. And Ive already stated why in previous responses, so take another month or two to read through them, and maybe you'll finally figure it out.
The article quotes these morons as demanding the temp be lowered to pre-industrial levels, so yes, they are neo-luddites. Its what you want too.You've no proof the scientists in the OP are neo-luddites. And I also was referring to just those scientists in the article, not all of them, in terms of you failing to prove they are neo-luddites.
Profit motive doesn't accomplish environmental goals.I am fine with battery electric cars competing on an equal footing with traditional cars, but not the government
preselecting a winner.
They literally tell you the target is above pre-industrial levels in that article. They even mention the exact amount, more than one time. You need to learn to read.The article quotes these morons as demanding the temp be lowered to pre-industrial levels
It sounds too absolute. There is no reason that achieving environmental goals cannot parallel making a profit!Profit motive doesn't accomplish environmental goals.
It can, if we force it to. Otherwise it will not. Absent regulatory requirements, none of these environmental efforts happen. Catalytic converters, capturing fly ash from coal plants, restricting runoff from chemical plants, all of that stuff costs money. If one company does it and the other does not, the "dirty" company is inherently more profitable. In fact, people running these companies would have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to pollute more, not less.It sounds too absolute. There is no reason that achieving environmental goals cannot parallel making a profit!
So you do not think Tesla, the solar panel companies, and Wind Turbine companies, are profit driven?It can, if we force it to. Otherwise it will not. Absent regulatory requirements, none of these environmental efforts happen. Catalytic converters, capturing fly ash from coal plants, restricting runoff from chemical plants, all of that stuff costs money. If one company does it and the other does not, the "dirty" company is inherently more profitable. In fact, people running these companies would have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to pollute more, not less.
It's the same with climate change. Without the government assisting clean energy sources, they'd be less prevalent than they are right now. Even your personal favorite of carbon capture to create synthetic fuels would be further behind in development than it is now.
No reason? Profit is the reason.
You admire these neo-luddites. We get it. So when are you ditching your house and car and moving into a cave?They literally tell you the target is above pre-industrial levels in that article. They even mention the exact amount, more than one time. You need to learn to read.
Besides, even wanting pre-industrial global temperature does not make one a luddite because that's not what the word luddite means.
You admire these neo-luddites. We get it. So when are you ditching your house and car and moving into a cave?
'Climate Revolution': Scientists Launch Global Civil Disobedience Campaign | Common Dreams
"Scientist Rebellion will be on the streets between April 4th and 9th, acting like our house is on fire. Because it is."www.commondreams.org
Excellent!
All heavily subsidized and we're still well short of targets. You're proving my point for me.So you do not think Tesla, the solar panel companies, and Wind Turbine companies, are profit driven?
None of them have yet, have they?Also the oil companies cannot make a profit by making carbon neutral fuels?
Caught out in your blatant lie, you make personal attacks. Typical PoS.You admire these neo-luddites. We get it. So when are you ditching your house and car and moving into a cave?
AGW is very real, just not as sensitive as the simulation suggest.The fact that you choose to troll people online instead of "disproving" AGW in peer-reviewed journals says everything: that you know every last one of you Anonymous Internet Deniers are lying for political reasons.
That's why it's so funny when you think you sound like you're *getting* someone.
The worst bit is that our children and grandchildren will pay for the dishonest arrogance of denierism.
In the IPCC AR3, it was argued that TCR, rather than ECS, was a more relevant metric of model response to increasing CO2.
CO2 growth for the last 20 years has averaged 2.74 ppm per year, or about 0.7% lower than the 1% per year of TCR.Meanwhile, the range of transient climate response (TCR, the surface temperature warming around the time of CO2 doubling in a 1% per year CO2 increase simulation) for the CMIP6 models of 1.7°C (1.3°C to 3.0°C) is only slightly larger than for the CMIP3 and CMIP5 models.
This change in energy imbalance is more than ten times greater than the change from added greenhouse gases over the same time.Over the period covered so far by BSRN (1992 to 2001), the decrease in earth reflectance
corresponds to an increase of 6 W m-2 in absorbed solar radiation by the globe (22)
Do you think because something is subsidized, that changes a companies profit motive?All heavily subsidized and we're still well short of targets. You're proving my point for me.
None of them have yet, have they?
Source for people arguing EV's will save the planet? And you can't just change what a word means to fit your post. That is not what a luddite is.To me, the only path forward towards a sustainable energy future within the framework of existing technology, is
hydrocarbon energy storage, yet people here argue that battery electric vehicles will save the planet.
For the purposes of this discussions the luddites, are those who refuse to consider all the options, even when they
know that their choice will only have a limited results over a long period of time.
No the luddites were a group opposed to the introduction of textile factories using power looms.Source for people arguing EV's will save the planet? And you can't just change what a word means to fit your post. That is not what a luddite is.
Do you think I'm arguing that companies don't have profit motive?Do you think because something is subsidized, that changes a companies profit motive?
Both subsidized, neither has turned a profit.Exxon is building a unit in Baytown, TX, to first make low carbon fuel, and Norway has a plant being built, to make carbon neutral jet fuel.
In post #57 you said,Do you think I'm arguing that companies don't have profit motive?
Both subsidized, neither has turned a profit.
implying that profits are incompatible with environmental goals.It can, if we force it to. Otherwise it will not. Absent regulatory requirements, none of these environmental efforts happen. Catalytic converters, capturing fly ash from coal plants, restricting runoff from chemical plants, all of that stuff costs money. If one company does it and the other does not, the "dirty" company is inherently more profitable.
Again, profitable when subsidized heavily by various world governments. Remember, this conversation started based on the idea that the government should stay out of it. You can't point at government-subsidized businesses as evidence that private business does this on their own.In post #57 you said,
implying that profits are incompatible with environmental goals.
(what do you think are the environmental goals anyway?)
Neither Exxon or Norsk have produced anything for sale...yet, but they are risking their capital
with the hope of making a profit.
I cannot say if Exxon's Unit conversion is subsidized, it may well be as it includes an enormous carbon capture side.Again, profitable when subsidized heavily by various world governments. Remember, this conversation started based on the idea that the government should stay out of it. You can't point at government-subsidized businesses as evidence that private business does this on their own.
Carbon neutral energy production, cleaner air, cleaner water, these things haven't been happening without government intervention. Over a century in the industrial era, how many examples can you show me of any significant environmental progress being made purely from a for-profit business' efforts.
If these goals are reachable purely by the free market, why hasn't a single goal been met by the free market? You bring up Tesla, a luxury product that still gets government subsidy. Where's the entry level product that's competitive in price with gasoline engines?
"A plant that doesn't exist yet and may possibly not be subsidized and hasn't earned a dime in profit" isn't a strong argument for the free market achieving these goals, my dude.I cannot say if Exxon's Unit conversion is subsidized, it may well be as it includes an enormous carbon capture side.
Subsidizes have nothing to do with profits, they are money sent by the Government to encourage"A plant that doesn't exist yet and may possibly not be subsidized and hasn't earned a dime in profit" isn't a strong argument for the free market achieving these goals, my dude.
For the record, they do get billions in subsidies for this, so you still have zero examples.
lol yes they do.Subsidizes have nothing to do with profits,
Yes, by making that behavior more profitable.they are money sent by the Government to encourage
some type of behavior.
No, you are speaking of a tax deduction. I am speaking of a subsidy. Both exist in green energy and electric cars. Furthermore, the distinction doesn't matter. This conversation started with the government hypothetically not being involved. A tax deduction still falls on my side of this argument.The requirement of a profit first, means you are speaking of a tax deduction, not a subsidy.
only in your imagination, a tax deduction is a business expense that reduces the gross profit to the net taxable profits.lol yes they do.
Yes, by making that behavior more profitable.
No, you are speaking of a tax deduction. I am speaking of a subsidy. Both exist in green energy and electric cars. Furthermore, the distinction doesn't matter. This conversation started with the government hypothetically not being involved. A tax deduction still falls on my side of this argument.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?