- Joined
- May 6, 2016
- Messages
- 1,908
- Reaction score
- 489
- Location
- Colorado
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
This is part 2 of climate change denial PRATTS. I had to split it into two parts because of the 5,000 character limit. . . .
One thing that might help convince the doubters is if the global warming advocates stopped making predictions that simply don’t come true.
For example 20 years from now when we are all still here and there still are blizzards in Ohio people will remember AOC’s prediction that we only had 12 years to save the planet.
It would also help if China and India were forced to reduce their pollution. We can reduce our level to zero and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere will still be increasing. Of course there is little chance if that ever happening. China would engineer and “accidentally” release another virus before they would curb their use of fossil fuel.
What will curb global warming is the development of fusion power plants.
Fusion Energy Is Coming, and Maybe Sooner Than You Think
Fusion Energy Is Coming, and Maybe Sooner Than You Think
So many words, to so little avail.
[h=2]How Climate Change Pseudoscience Became Publicly Accepted[/h]
What you're probably thinking of is models from the 80s when scientists thought that the climate was more sensitive.
Also, AOC is not a scientist, what she's referring to is the amount of time before the earth becomes 1.5 degrees warmer (which the Paris accords were to prevent). People like you complain that climate solutions would have a detrimental effect on developing countries, yet here you are complaining that China and India aren't contributing their fair share. I don't know about India but China has been making progress on clean energy (like I said in the OP). Nuclear fusion has the potential to be a really good power source. The problem is that it won't come soon enough to meet our climate goals.
What you're probably thinking of is models from the 80s when scientists thought that the climate was more sensitive.
Also, AOC is not a scientist, what she's referring to is the amount of time before the earth becomes 1.5 degrees warmer (which the Paris accords were to prevent). People like you complain that climate solutions would have a detrimental effect on developing countries, yet here you are complaining that China and India aren't contributing their fair share. I don't know about India but China has been making progress on clean energy (like I said in the OP). Nuclear fusion has the potential to be a really good power source. The problem is that it won't come soon enough to meet our climate goals.
Again with the blogpost.
What you're probably thinking of is models from the 80s when scientists thought that the climate was more sensitive.
Also, AOC is not a scientist, what she's referring to is the amount of time before the earth becomes 1.5 degrees warmer (which the Paris accords were to prevent). People like you complain that climate solutions would have a detrimental effect on developing countries, yet here you are complaining that China and India aren't contributing their fair share. I don't know about India but China has been making progress on clean energy (like I said in the OP). Nuclear fusion has the potential to be a really good power source. The problem is that it won't come soon enough to meet our climate goals.
What you're probably thinking of is models from the 80s when scientists thought that the climate was more sensitive.
Also, AOC is not a scientist, what she's referring to is the amount of time before the earth becomes 1.5 degrees warmer (which the Paris accords were to prevent). People like you complain that climate solutions would have a detrimental effect on developing countries, yet here you are complaining that China and India aren't contributing their fair share. I don't know about India but China has been making progress on clean energy (like I said in the OP). Nuclear fusion has the potential to be a really good power source. The problem is that it won't come soon enough to meet our climate goals.
You say people are complaining about climate solutions, I want to know what you think the climate solution is?
Simply cutting emissions by making our energy use more efficient, will not get us where we need to go.
We, Humanity, has an energy problem, and oil based fuels, cannot solve it, but neither can conservation.
We simply do not have enough energy in the ground, to allow everyone alive, to live a first world lifestyle if they choose to.
Solar is a possible option, but the energy is too low density, and the duty cycle is poor.
Man made carbon neutral hydrocarbon fuels, would allows us to store and accumulate solar energy,
into the dense energy packages we currently get from oil.
The only delay, is that the fuels will not be economically viable, until oil hits about $90 a barrel.
We also need the government so address and solve the net metering problem it created.
One thing that might help convince the doubters is if the global warming advocates stopped making predictions that simply don’t come true.
For example 20 years from now when we are all still here and there still are blizzards in Ohio people will remember AOC’s prediction that we only had 12 years to save the planet.
It would also help if China and India were forced to reduce their pollution. We can reduce our level to zero and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere will still be increasing. Of course there is little chance if that ever happening. China would engineer and “accidentally” release another virus before they would curb their use of fossil fuel.
What will curb global warming is the development of fusion power plants.
Fusion Energy Is Coming, and Maybe Sooner Than You Think
Fusion Energy Is Coming, and Maybe Sooner Than You Think
The point is that for solar to be viable, it MUST have viable storage, (not conventional batteries).Electric cars are increasing quickly. Although solar may be low density, it can literally be anywhere (except roadways).
Hey as long as they said they did a full hard-hitting investigation, I guess it's ok!Th
In wake of the controversy, several major organizations did an investigation and found no foul play.
By putting a price on carbon dioxide, companies and people are discouraged from producing carbon dioxide, not pollution. (The regrettable fact is that many proposals to reduce other forms of pollution, such as outfitting smokestacks in nickel plants with heavy metal scrubbers, have been scrapped in favour of technologies to reduce CO2 output specifically.)First of all, climate change will have a disproportionately negative effect on the poor so your point is kinda moot. ...
You don’t need a bunch of new government programs to solve this issue. It can easily be solved by a carbon tax. By putting a price on carbon dioxide, it discourages companies and people from polluting.
By putting a price on carbon dioxide, companies and people are discouraged from producing carbon dioxide, not pollution. (The regrettable fact is that many proposals to reduce other forms of pollution, such as outfitting smokestacks in nickel plants with heavy metal scrubbers, have been scrapped in favour of technologies to reduce CO2 output specifically.)
What do companies and people do to produce carbon dioxide? Hundreds of things. Foods, fuels, plastics, electronics, chemicals, HVAC, travel, and all manner of consumer goods generate carbon dioxide when produced, consumed, or both.
How are companies and people "discouraged" from producing carbon dioxide through a program of taxation? By raising prices of foods, fuels, plastics, electronics, chemicals, HVAC, travel, and all manner of consumer goods until people can no longer afford to consume them.
Who suffers the most dramatic decline in quality of life as a result of price raising to starve consumers of their ability to consume? Obviously, the poor. The wealthy can afford to pay the carbon taxes and consume as much as they currently do. Poor people cannot. To make matters worse, the success of the carbon tax is inextricably linked to the degree to which the taxes can diminish the ability of the lower classes to consume anything.
Hence while "climate change will have a disproportionately negative effect on the poor", so too will your proposed solution, presuming it has any effectiveness whatsoever.
If you're proposing a light tax that doesn't starve consumers of the ability to consume but instead subsidizes carbon capture, this is a different beast.The carbon tax could be structured in a way to incentivize carbon capture
One thing that might help convince the doubters is if the global warming advocates stopped making predictions that simply don’t come true.
For example 20 years from now when we are all still here and there still are blizzards in Ohio people will remember AOC’s prediction that we only had 12 years to save the planet.
It would also help if China and India were forced to reduce their pollution. We can reduce our level to zero and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere will still be increasing. Of course there is little chance if that ever happening. China would engineer and “accidentally” release another virus before they would curb their use of fossil fuel.
What will curb global warming is the development of fusion power plants.
Fusion Energy Is Coming, and Maybe Sooner Than You Think
Fusion Energy Is Coming, and Maybe Sooner Than You Think
Electric cars are increasing quickly. Although solar may be low density, it can literally be anywhere (except roadways).
The point is that for solar to be viable, it MUST have viable storage, (not conventional batteries).
The storage must be massive and capable of moving Fall and Spring surplus, to Winter and Summer demands.
Storing the surplus as hydrocarbons has the added advantage, of producing carbon neutral transport fuels.
Imagine a Boeing or Airbus jet, crossing the ocean, with zero net CO2 emissions?
Or the entire global fleet of ground vehicles having zero net CO2 emissions?
The impact of emissions would be far greater that waiting for everyone to get a electric car, and quicker as well.
Parts of Europe could do this today, by waving the excessive fuel tax on carbon neutral fuels.
By putting a price on carbon dioxide, companies and people are discouraged from producing carbon dioxide, not pollution. (The regrettable fact is that many proposals to reduce other forms of pollution, such as outfitting smokestacks in nickel plants with heavy metal scrubbers, have been scrapped in favour of technologies to reduce CO2 output specifically.)
What do companies and people do to produce carbon dioxide? Hundreds of things. Foods, fuels, plastics, electronics, chemicals, HVAC, travel, and all manner of consumer goods generate carbon dioxide when produced, consumed, or both.
How are companies and people "discouraged" from producing carbon dioxide through a program of taxation? By raising prices of foods, fuels, plastics, electronics, chemicals, HVAC, travel, and all manner of consumer goods until people can no longer afford to consume them.
Who suffers the most dramatic decline in quality of life as a result of price raising to starve consumers of their ability to consume? Obviously, the poor. The wealthy can afford to pay the carbon taxes and consume as much as they currently do. Poor people cannot. To make matters worse, the success of the carbon tax is inextricably linked to the degree to which the taxes can diminish the ability of the lower classes to consume anything.
Hence while "climate change will have a disproportionately negative effect on the poor", so too will your proposed solution, presuming it has any effectiveness whatsoever.
The carbon tax could be structured in a way to incentivize carbon capture
Yep.
Plug your car into an infrastructure that is mostly coal powered, instead of burning gasoline that burns clean....
Yep.
We need to tax pollution. Not CO2.
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?