• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!

Trump on climate change report: 'I don't believe it'

It doesn't matter about costs you imagine, what matters is the cost of goods sold on the balance sheet,
and those costs are increasing. As I said at some point the greater profits will be from the man made fuels.

If I read you correctly, then perhaps we don't disagree on some key facts - At some point the costs of extracting fossil fuels will be prohibitive compared to renewable energy extraction. The problem is, with all the government encouragement to ignore the science and subsidize the fossil fuel industry, that point will likely occur after irreversible environmental degradation has occurred, with billions of human lives deeply affected. Maybe in a Libertarian view, that's okay, since the Holy Market is on a pedestal above human life. For me though, Capitalism solves many problems, but certainly not all of them, including environmental degradation.
 
If I read you correctly, then perhaps we don't disagree on some key facts - At some point the costs of extracting fossil fuels will be prohibitive compared to renewable energy extraction. The problem is, with all the government encouragement to ignore the science and subsidize the fossil fuel industry, that point will likely occur after irreversible environmental degradation has occurred, with billions of human lives deeply affected. Maybe in a Libertarian view, that's okay, since the Holy Market is on a pedestal above human life. For me though, Capitalism solves many problems, but certainly not all of them, including environmental degradation.
I am guessing that you do not have a good feel for the risks, or lack of them, and the timing.
I think oil will pass the threshold within a decade. All that fracking speeds how quickly fields deplete their reserves.
What oil remains will be more expensive, and more difficult to extract.
It will be difficult to extract and refine much more fuels than we already do, but if we manage to increase flow, it will only speed
up the time frame when the price will increase.
For the sake of discussion, let's say it takes 20 years to reach economic viability .
The highest emission growth year on record, increased emissions by ~3 ppm per year, so 20 years at 3 ppm per year would put CO2 levels at
468 ppm, so the forcing warming that would cause would be 1.58 X ln(468/408)=.22 C
Now if a century of historic readings are any indication of future patterns 75% of that .22 C will be in the minimum temperature,
and only .055 C will be in the maximum temperatures.
We have all already lived through periods of greater warming!
 
If I read you correctly, then perhaps we don't disagree on some key facts - At some point the costs of extracting fossil fuels will be prohibitive compared to renewable energy extraction. The problem is, with all the government encouragement to ignore the science and subsidize the fossil fuel industry, that point will likely occur after irreversible environmental degradation has occurred, with billions of human lives deeply affected. Maybe in a Libertarian view, that's okay, since the Holy Market is on a pedestal above human life. For me though, Capitalism solves many problems, but certainly not all of them, including environmental degradation.

For example that the Trump administration wants to spend billions on dollar on propping up unprofitable coal plants.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-d...save-americas-failing-coal-fired-power-plants

Also that global subsidies to fossil fuel are much bigger. than the subsidies to renewable energy.

https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2...nsumption-subsidies-are-down-but-not-out.html

You also have this study from the IMF that concludes that the unpaid social cost of fossil fuels are trillions of dollars each year.

https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/28/04/53/sonew070215a
 
For example that the Trump administration wants to spend billions on dollar on propping up unprofitable coal plants.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-d...save-americas-failing-coal-fired-power-plants

Also that global subsidies to fossil fuel are much bigger. than the subsidies to renewable energy.

https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2...nsumption-subsidies-are-down-but-not-out.html

You also have this study from the IMF that concludes that the unpaid social cost of fossil fuels are trillions of dollars each year.

https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/28/04/53/sonew070215a

Yep.

But even if these subsidies were withheld, the vaunted free market has no real answer to envirvonmental issues, since the true costs to the environmental are socialized.
 
Yep.

But even if these subsidies were withheld, the vaunted free market has no real answer to envirvonmental issues, since the true costs to the environmental are socialized.

Yes the free market is very bad at handling negative effects that affects the entire society. There even federal reports published during Trump’s presidency warns about the devastating effects from climate caused by fossil fuels.

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/

You also have all the toxic air pollutants from fossil fuels. There meeting the Paris Agreement could save a million lives per year just by reducing air pollutions.

“Meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement could save about a million lives a year worldwide by 2050 through reductions in air pollution alone. The latest estimates from leading experts also indicate that the value of health gains from climate action would be approximately double the cost of mitigation policies at global level, and the benefit-to-cost ratio is even higher in countries such as China and India.”


https://www.who.int/news-room/detai...fl5F8cSRCxSxRYf2GXMmdDi4CwzZI8heXVwFv2zfvJ3dA
 
Back
Top Bottom