• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Let's say just for the sake of argument that AGW is real

Papa bull

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
6,927
Reaction score
2,599
Location
Midwest
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
For those fretting about global warming... let's just scrap all the scientific kerfuffle over whether anthropogenic global warming is real and assume for this argument that (a) the Earth is rapidly warming and (b) it's man's Co2 emissions that are causing it.

What would YOU have us all do about it?
 

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
16,660
Reaction score
4,004
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
For those fretting about global warming... let's just scrap all the scientific kerfuffle over whether anthropogenic global warming is real and assume for this argument that (a) the Earth is rapidly warming and (b) it's man's Co2 emissions that are causing it.

What would YOU have us all do about it?

Well first off we just gotta eat the rich. Thats a given whatever happens :lol:
 

Spartacus FPV

Better You = Better World
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
14,870
Reaction score
7,126
Location
Your Echochamber
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
For those fretting about global warming... let's just scrap all the scientific kerfuffle over whether anthropogenic global warming is real and assume for this argument that (a) the Earth is rapidly warming and (b) it's man's Co2 emissions that are causing it.

What would YOU have us all do about it?

You mean even if global warming isn't real you want to have cleaner air, water, sustainable energy and a better environment? I don't think so! :scared:
 

Papa bull

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
6,927
Reaction score
2,599
Location
Midwest
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
You mean even if global warming isn't real you want to have cleaner air, water, sustainable energy and a better environment? I don't think so! :scared:

I didn't ask for platitudes. I asked for specific actions. How do you make these things happen? Let's just pretend there aren't any magic wands and you actually have to do something rational. Just sayin'.
 

Spartacus FPV

Better You = Better World
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
14,870
Reaction score
7,126
Location
Your Echochamber
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I didn't ask for platitudes. I asked for specific actions. How do you make these things happen? Let's just pretend there aren't any magic wands and you actually have to do something rational. Just sayin'.

You OP drew a distinction between you and us, who is the you that you expect to handle the problem and who are the us who don't see the benefits to cleaner air/water/environment and sustainable energy?

Really... if you don't want these things, then why are you dissatisfied with mere platitudes?
 

Helix

Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
72,589
Reaction score
55,606
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
For those fretting about global warming... let's just scrap all the scientific kerfuffle over whether anthropogenic global warming is real and assume for this argument that (a) the Earth is rapidly warming and (b) it's man's Co2 emissions that are causing it.

What would YOU have us all do about it?

the same thing i'd do if it wasn't real : begin a twenty to thirty year public / private moonshot to replace oil completely. this would mean more funding for renewable research, and a massive upgrade of our electrical grid. the public side of the partnership can take on the parts that aren't profitable right now. i'd even go so far as to support publicly built and run nuclear power plants. that would make it easier to get them built.

as for the research side, multiple entities (including academic institutions) compete with each other to come up with the best transition model / technology. we let feasibility and the market pick the winners.

replacing oil is a matter of when. we can do it now when it's not yet a crisis, or we can toss the problem onto our kids and grandkids and let them fight the war for remaining carbon resources. i'd rather tackle it now.
 

Papa bull

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
6,927
Reaction score
2,599
Location
Midwest
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
You OP drew a distinction between you and us, who is the you that you expect to handle the problem and who are the us who don't see the benefits to cleaner air/water/environment and sustainable energy?

Really... if you don't want these things, then why are you dissatisfied with mere platitudes?

I like those things. I don't like magic wands, though. They're not real.

I asked what you would have us DO. Not what you would like to see. I'd like to see cleaner water, more forests, cheaper, cleaner fuels, world peace, global prosperity and a cure for cancer and maybe even a few million dollars in my bank account. But I didn't ask what do you want. I asked what you would have us DO to achieve it.

Now if you can do it by yourself, then forget about the "us" part and just tell us what you, personally, would do to make sure all that happened. If not, then tell us what you would have US do to make it happen. Are you following this or is it still too complicated for you?
 

Papa bull

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
6,927
Reaction score
2,599
Location
Midwest
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
the same thing i'd do if it wasn't real : begin a twenty to thirty year public / private moonshot to replace oil completely. this would mean more funding for renewable research, and a massive upgrade of our electrical grid. the public side of the partnership can take on the parts that aren't profitable right now. i'd even go so far as to support publicly built and run nuclear power plants. that would make it easier to get them built.

as for the research side, multiple entities (including academic institutions) compete with each other to come up with the best transition model / technology. we let feasibility and the market pick the winners.

replacing oil is a matter of when. we can do it now when it's not yet a crisis, or we can toss the problem onto our kids and grandkids and let them fight the war for remaining carbon resources. i'd rather tackle it now.

We have carbon based fuels that can last us for hundreds of years. Trying to legislate us out of a carbon based energy economy to technology that hasn't even been developed yet is like jumping out of an airplane with some nylon sheeting and a needle and thread with the expectations that we can just make the parachute on our way down.

What a lot of people don't seem to realize is that there is never going to be an energy source cheaper, safer and easier to transport than oil. Transitioning away from oil will destroy us economically if we try to do it before everyone else does.
 

clownboy

DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
26,087
Reaction score
10,860
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
For those fretting about global warming... let's just scrap all the scientific kerfuffle over whether anthropogenic global warming is real and assume for this argument that (a) the Earth is rapidly warming and (b) it's man's Co2 emissions that are causing it.

What would YOU have us all do about it?

Bend over and kiss your ass goodbye. Really, if the cultists are correct and to the degree they believe they are correct, humans being who they are, we're done, stick a fork in us. Only thing to do is to enjoy as much time as we have left.
 

Papa bull

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
6,927
Reaction score
2,599
Location
Midwest
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Bend over and kiss your ass goodbye. Really, if the cultists are correct and to the degree they believe they are correct, humans being who they are, we're done, stick a fork in us. Only thing to do is to enjoy as much time as we have left.

We have to do that, anyway. We're all going to die. Even if we could live forever, the Earth won't last forever. But if the human race lasts long enough, I can still see the same sort of people trying to make a buck and get political leverage with anthropogenic galactic collisions.
 

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,699
Reaction score
5,703
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If AGW is real you better just learn to adapt, whining like little girls might make you feel better but the reality is nothing can be done to stop this snowball rolling down hill and melting. :lol:


"Those of us who live in the "developed" world initiated it. Those who live in the "developing" world will sustain it as they strive for a standard of living equal to ours.

"As far as global warming is concerned, the developed world is becoming irrelevant," Muller insists in his book. We could set an example by curbing our emissions, and thus claim in the future that "it wasn't our fault," but about the only thing that could stop it would be a complete economic collapse in China and the rest of the world's developing countries.

As they race forward, their industrial growth -- and their greenhouse gas emissions -- will outpace any efforts by the West to reduce their carbon footprints, Muller contends.

"China has been installing a new gigawatt of coal power each week," he says in his Times piece, and each plant pumps an additional ton of gases into the atmosphere "every second."

"By the time you read this, China's yearly greenhouse gas emissions will be double those of the United States, perhaps higher," he contends. And that's not likely to change.


It May Be Too Late to Stop Global Warming - ABC News
 

Papa bull

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
6,927
Reaction score
2,599
Location
Midwest
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Seems it is a lot easier to argue the existence of AGW than it is to come up with practical solutions to this theoretical problem.
 

GottaGo

Rock and a hard place
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2012
Messages
5,635
Reaction score
4,910
Location
Miles to go before I sleep
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Seems it is a lot easier to argue the existence of AGW than it is to come up with practical solutions to this theoretical problem.

The key word there is 'practical'.

Even if we were all to do all the 'right' things, stop driving, reduce our electric consumption, recycle, penalize the bejeejus out of polluters, etc, etc.... you're not going to stop a freight train with a feather.

It's why I laughed and cried at the same time when the Cap and Trade was a hot item.... like taxing it would fix it?
 

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
16,660
Reaction score
4,004
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Seems it is a lot easier to argue the existence of AGW than it is to come up with practical solutions to this theoretical problem.

Trust me. Any solution will be the costliest one they can find because our impossibly 'fragile' world supposedly demands this of us. Whatever happens expect your wallet to get a lot lighter in the coming years. Its happening here in the UK already as my energy bills skyrocket in order to further our economically suicidal green agenda :(
 

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
16,660
Reaction score
4,004
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Warmers live just like the rest of us but they are believers so that makes them somehow superior, in their own minds anyway.

Yes but what will paying for thier moral superiority ultimately cost the rest of us long term I wonder ? The Chinese must be laughing all the way to the bank :(
 

MoSurveyor

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
10,016
Reaction score
3,900
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
We have carbon based fuels that can last us for hundreds of years. Trying to legislate us out of a carbon based energy economy to technology that hasn't even been developed yet is like jumping out of an airplane with some nylon sheeting and a needle and thread with the expectations that we can just make the parachute on our way down.

What a lot of people don't seem to realize is that there is never going to be an energy source cheaper, safer and easier to transport than oil. Transitioning away from oil will destroy us economically if we try to do it before everyone else does.
About what I expected as your response to a reasonable post.

Obviously, this thread is just another place for you to preach. :roll:
 

Papa bull

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
6,927
Reaction score
2,599
Location
Midwest
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
About what I expected as your response to a reasonable post.

Obviously, this thread is just another place for you to preach. :roll:

I thought it was stating the obvious. What sort of energy is cheaper and more portable than one you pump out of the ground in form that is, for all intents and purposes, ready to use and very efficient? It is solar energy that has been converted to a portable fuel by nature. We aren't going to do better than that and we need to understand this. There is no magic bullet because the laws of thermodynamics, as we know them today, simply don't allow a better option.

We can work on finding cleaner and more ready renewable fuels. We can work on using fuel more efficiently. We can work on conserving fuel. We can do things that will help but what we won't do is find a more potent and affordable fuel than oil.

Anyway, I said right up front, we need to evaluate our options. Can't do that until we hear them. Any more ideas?
 

MoSurveyor

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
10,016
Reaction score
3,900
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I thought it was stating the obvious. What sort of energy is cheaper and more portable than one you pump out of the ground in form that is, for all intents and purposes, ready to use and very efficient? It is solar energy that has been converted to a portable fuel by nature. We aren't going to do better than that and we need to understand this. There is no magic bullet because the laws of thermodynamics, as we know them today, simply don't allow a better option.

We can work on finding cleaner and more ready renewable fuels. We can work on using fuel more efficiently. We can work on conserving fuel. We can do things that will help but what we won't do is find a more potent and affordable fuel than oil.

Anyway, I said right up front, we need to evaluate our options. Can't do that until we hear them. Any more ideas?
I think this post shows you've already made up your mind so why bother?
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
45,219
Reaction score
13,217
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
For those fretting about global warming... let's just scrap all the scientific kerfuffle over whether anthropogenic global warming is real and assume for this argument that (a) the Earth is rapidly warming and (b) it's man's Co2 emissions that are causing it.

What would YOU have us all do about it?
Go to electric cars and sequester CO2 from sources. It will be costly, but if we knew it was real, the public would do just that.
 

jmotivator

No longer monitoring
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
27,187
Reaction score
13,537
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
You mean even if global warming isn't real you want to have cleaner air, water, sustainable energy and a better environment? I don't think so! :scared:

I would like all those things too which is why I am rather annoyed with the people trying to sell those using a lie. The average person doesn't care one way or the other about the environment somewhere else on the planet, and barely about the one they are in. So when you sell them on bad technology to fix a non-problem then all you have done is pushed a pendulum that will swing the other way in equal amounts. The forced gasoline fast of the 70s, and the terrrrible fuel efficient cars, led to the SUV boom when everyone realize the panic was for nothing. When AGW is finally realized to be of no concern how many hybrids do you think people will buy?

In other words, clean air, water and new energy sources are great, but aren't achievable if you sell them like snake oil.
 

Papa bull

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
6,927
Reaction score
2,599
Location
Midwest
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Go to electric cars and sequester CO2 from sources. It will be costly, but if we knew it was real, the public would do just that.

That sounds like a good idea but how would we generate the electricity needed if we replaced combustion engines with electric engines...... Without using fossil fuels to fire the generators?
 

csbrown28

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
3,102
Reaction score
1,603
Location
NW Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
For those fretting about global warming... let's just scrap all the scientific kerfuffle over whether anthropogenic global warming is real and assume for this argument that (a) the Earth is rapidly warming and (b) it's man's Co2 emissions that are causing it.

What would YOU have us all do about it?

This is an excellent question.

My position would first be be to understand the economic consequences of any change and weigh those consequences against their potential to effect changes. I for one understand that the only approach that will work is one that allows the US, or any country considering change, is one that allows that country to maintain economic strength. Failing economies can't afford to make changes and worse they often are willing to "cut corners" when it comes to the environment.

We mustn't let the extremists dictate policy, these of people who generally can't see the forest for the trees. We must look at the fewest changes that can be made that, statistically speaking that have the largest affect, again assuming economically viable approach. Like most things, I'd be willing to guess that there is a minority of sources of that is responsible for the majority CO2 emissions.
 

Papa bull

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
6,927
Reaction score
2,599
Location
Midwest
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
This is an excellent question.

My position would first be be to understand the economic consequences of any change and weigh those consequences against their potential to effect changes. I for one understand that the only approach that will work is one that allows the US, or any country considering change, is one that allows that country to maintain economic strength. Failing economies can't afford to make changes and worse they often are willing to "cut corners" when it comes to the environment.

We mustn't let the extremists dictate policy, these of people who generally can't see the forest for the trees. We must look at the fewest changes that can be made that, statistically speaking that have the largest affect, again assuming economically viable approach. Like most things, I'd be willing to guess that there is a minority of sources of that is responsible for the majority CO2 emissions.

I agree completely. If we could make changes that had no impact on us economically, it would be a ridiculously easy decision to go ahead and make those changes even if there was just a slight possibility that AGW was real and catastrophic. But the fact of the matter is that if we are to unilaterally make changes that would significantly reduce Co2 emissions the economic impact would be very high. So we carefully have to evaluate the risk/reward before taking action. Without any certainty that there would be dire ecologic consequences at all, it can be very hard to persuade people to take or tolerate actions that would create dire economic consequences in hopes that it would preclude the problem. More so if it's unilateral and wouldn't have a significant impact on the problem.
 

Threegoofs

COVID survivor
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
53,366
Reaction score
19,454
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
For those fretting about global warming... let's just scrap all the scientific kerfuffle over whether anthropogenic global warming is real and assume for this argument that (a) the Earth is rapidly warming and (b) it's man's Co2 emissions that are causing it.

What would YOU have us all do about it?


Well, first of all, we should banish all the people who have been falsely misrepresenting science to the sidelines. Because the issue is real, and the delay they are causing in working out a solution is inexcusable, much like the people who fought the effects of cigarette smoking and health are responsible for many deaths and untold suffering because they desired short term profit over long term solutions. In fact, looking at this from the perspective of the tobacco fights in the 70s, 80s and 90s is instructive.

That being said, the first thing that needs to be addressed is to mitigate further CO2 emission. That means moving off of fossil fuels, but especially coal and oil, to other means of energy. Alternative energy is critical here, expansion of safe nuclear energy too and I would also think massive funding toward fusion research is helpful. This can be accomplished by a few different means. For those who want heavy government hands involved, mandating this stuff works. For those who prefer a market approach (I concur with this) a carbon tax or a cap and trade in carbon credits will be helpful. Ensuring the developing world gets with the program will also be useful, but since China is actually ahead of the US on this, it wont be too tough.

Coal and Oil can still work if we figure out some way of carbon sequestration. Its not a crazy idea to divert CO2 from coal plants into underground reserviors.

Lastly, geoengineering may be necessary at some point. removing the excess CO2 from the atmosphere might be challenging, but its possible to do theoretically. Less useful may be means that have unintended consequences, such as SO2 seeding and encouraging phytoplankton blooms, etc. But science should also be exploring these avenues. Decades from now, things may become clearer on solutions and the early work will give a jump start to solutions.

Of course, there are issues and costs with all of these things. And I expect the AGW crowd will be whining about all of them, just as the pro-tobacco crowd whined about 'freedom' when we resticted smoking rights, increased tobacco taxes, and made smokers paraihs. But I think most people looking back realize that we have all benefitted from a society that is attemtping to limit smoking.
 
Top Bottom