Two simple questions for true believers [W:272]

[Nilly]

Re: Two simple questions for true believers

I agree with that except for the 'ignored' part. There are advances in new technology every day.
I don't know how old you are but in my 57+ years, I've seen tremendous improvements in the environment

My examples were from the radical Leftist POV.

I'm not saying that green technology is ignored, I am saying that the impact to the environment is ignored as a cost when companies perform cost benefit analysis. At the end of the day, even to a green company, profit is more important than the environment, but we simply need to do more across the board to take into account the cost to the environment, along with the cost to the shareholders.

If all you do is bring up radical left solutions then all you do is foster bipartisanship and resentment between the sides. I would love for the two sides of this debate to be able to discuss rationally but inthis day and age debate on this topic devolves into a shouting match. You may not believe it, but many lefties want America to be both green and prosperous. I can also assure you that the agenda of the majority of the left is not to make people spend more, or to make ourselves richer. 99% of the 97% of climate scientists who do think climate change is artificial will not significantly benefit financially from changes to green policy. Our only agenda is a cleaner world.

Finally, even if the AGW crowd is wrong, and climate change will not have half the impact that it is feared to, then consider my earlier statement that it is likely that commercial air flight will probably not be feasible without fossil fuels. Oil is still a limited resource one way or another, and one day it will run out. Does it not make sense to reduce our dependence on a resource that we know for a fact is limited? Ignoring all agw consequences, if we reduced the amount of oil we used today, it would give centuries more time to the aviation industry and make it cheaper in general. If we can reduce our dependence on it, then why not?

 

[longview]

Re: Two simple questions for true believers

Finally, even if the AGW crowd is wrong, and climate change will not have half the impact that it is feared to, then consider my earlier statement that it is likely that commercial air flight will probably not be feasible without fossil fuels. Oil is still a limited resource one way or another, and one day it will run out. Does it not make sense to reduce our dependence on a resource that we know for a fact is limited? Ignoring all agw consequences, if we reduced the amount of oil we used today, it would give centuries more time to the aviation industry and make it cheaper in general. If we can reduce our dependence on it, then why not?

Organic oil is a limited resource, hydrocarbon fuels we can make all we need.
It turns out to be a very good energy storage device. Much better than batteries,
both is terms of density and shelve life.

 

[Threegoofs]

Re: Two simple questions for true believers

Lets say you have convinced me that man made global warming is a clear and present danger. I have two questions for you.'

1: What should I personally do to help stop global warming?

2: If you were king of the world what laws would you immediately enact to stop global warming?

1. Advocate and vote for politicians who promote good environmental policy. Being more aware of your own carbon footprint is nice too, but fairly irrelevant in the big scheme.

2. Carbon cap and trade or a carbon tax- possibly a revenue neutral one that returns all the monies to the people.

 

[paddymcdougall]

Re: Two simple questions for true believers

Lets say you have convinced me that man made global warming is a clear and present danger. I have two questions for you.'

1: What should I personally do to help stop global warming?

2: If you were king of the world what laws would you immediately enact to stop global warming?

Lot of people have focused on q2, so I'll respond to q1:

Cut back on your personal use of fossil fuels. Install solar panels at your house to provide most of your power. Consider any plane trips you are planning - do you really have to take that trip? Consolidate trips when you use your car - car pool to work, or, when you run errands, try to cover multiple stops at the same time rather than going out on each errand individually. (I live 10 miles from the local town; and I work from home. I try to minimize my trips to town - when I do go, I do all my errands at the same time. So ideally I'm only going to town a couple days a week, or maybe 3 days. Of course there are weeks I have to go more often, but I try to minimize)

When you buy appliances, look for energy star appliances. If you have appliances that are older than 10 years, consider replacing them even if they are still working. When it is time to replace your car, consider a good hybrid (not like the hybrid trucks that still only get 16 miles to the gallon). Use LED or CFB lightbulbs. Use re-usable grocery bags. At all times, look for ways to reduce, reuse, recycle. Producing a new item uses energy.

Vote for politicians who will work to cut back our carbon emissions from industries. In California, we put a cap & trade program in place, and we are actually ahead of target in terms of carbon emissions.

I just finished "The Bone Clocks" by David Mitchell. I don't want to give away spoilers, but at the end his view of the world in the mid-2000s is pretty bleak.

We need to conserve gas where we can; and move to other kinds of fuel whereever we can. As someone mentioned, there are some things like airplanes that will have a very hard time moving away from oil for fuel. But for those places that can, let's look at alternative fuels.

In the long run, my personal belief is that we will fail. That no one will have the political will to get the world to cooperate and to combat global climate change. I foresee waves of refugees from low-lying countries, our coasts flooding, temperatures rising, food and water shortages. I think it's going to suck. But if people won't change, that will happen.

 

[WCH]

Re: Two simple questions for true believers

I'm not saying that green technology is ignored, I am saying that the impact to the environment is ignored as a cost when companies perform cost benefit analysis. At the end of the day, even to a green company, profit is more important than the environment, but we simply need to do more across the board to take into account the cost to the environment, along with the cost to the shareholders.

If all you do is bring up radical left solutions then all you do is foster bipartisanship and resentment between the sides. I would love for the two sides of this debate to be able to discuss rationally but inthis day and age debate on this topic devolves into a shouting match. You may not believe it, but many lefties want America to be both green and prosperous. I can also assure you that the agenda of the majority of the left is not to make people spend more, or to make ourselves richer. 99% of the 97% of climate scientists who do think climate change is artificial will not significantly benefit financially from changes to green policy. Our only agenda is a cleaner world.

Finally, even if the AGW crowd is wrong, and climate change will not have half the impact that it is feared to, then consider my earlier statement that it is likely that commercial air flight will probably not be feasible without fossil fuels. Oil is still a limited resource one way or another, and one day it will run out. Does it not make sense to reduce our dependence on a resource that we know for a fact is limited? Ignoring all agw consequences, if we reduced the amount of oil we used today, it would give centuries more time to the aviation industry and make it cheaper in general. If we can reduce our dependence on it, then why not?

Hey I was expecting levitating pollution free vehicles by now but, considering we can now see the sky in parts of the country where we couldn't I'm hopeful we're making progress.

 

[clownboy]

Re: Two simple questions for true believers

Cut back on your personal use of fossil foods.

I've already completely cut fuel oil from my diet, but it's hard to start the day without a bowl of that Crunchy Coal. :mrgreen:

 

[paddymcdougall]

Re: Two simple questions for true believers

I've already completely cut fuel oil from my diet, but it's hard to start the day without a bowl of that Crunchy Coal. :mrgreen:

hee hee! that was a heck of a typo! I corrected it, thanks for noticing!

 

[Nilly]

Re: Two simple questions for true believers

Hey I was expecting levitating pollution free vehicles by now but, considering we can now see the sky in parts of the country where we couldn't I'm hopeful we're making progress.

We are making progress, I just don't think we're making it fast enough. I don't think a cleaner planet is a partisan issue at all, we can all agree that it is better in principle. The partisan issue comes in the disagreement on the how to get there, how fast we can get there and what sacrifices need to be made on the way.

 

[ocean515]

Re: Two simple questions for true believers

We are making progress, I just don't think we're making it fast enough. I don't think a cleaner planet is a partisan issue at all, we can all agree that it is better in principle. The partisan issue comes in the disagreement on the how to get there, how fast we can get there and what sacrifices need to be made on the way.

I think the disagreement goes farther than that. Added to your list of areas of disagreement is what the government will need to look like to get there. When the bottom line of the effort is a social justice agenda, many see AGW as nothing but a tool to effect that change.

 

[blaxshep]

Re: Two simple questions for true believers

Carbon cap and trade or a carbon tax- possibly a revenue neutral one that returns all the monies to the people.

This will reduce carbon output how exactly?

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: Two simple questions for true believers

1. Advocate and vote for politicians who promote good environmental policy. Being more aware of your own carbon footprint is nice too, but fairly irrelevant in the big scheme.

2. Carbon cap and trade or a carbon tax- possibly a revenue neutral one that returns all the monies to the people.

So granny is forced out of her big home that she raised her family in because she cannot afford the heating bills and the rich don't have to put up with all those poor people blocking up the roads as they cannot afford to travel.

Tax on fuel hits the poor with almost the same bills as the rich. Do you want that?

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: Two simple questions for true believers

This will reduce carbon output how exactly?

Poor people will die of cold in the winters. Less people less CO2. Happy Eco-warriors.

 

[blaxshep]

Re: Two simple questions for true believers

Poor people will die of cold in the winters. Less people less CO2. Happy Eco-warriors.

I suppose a collapsed economy would kill off quite a few people, good plan!

 

[Threegoofs]

Re: Two simple questions for true believers

This will reduce carbon output how exactly?

By pricing carbon appropriately.

 

[Threegoofs]

Re: Two simple questions for true believers

So granny is forced out of her big home that she raised her family in because she cannot afford the heating bills and the rich don't have to put up with all those poor people blocking up the roads as they cannot afford to travel.

Tax on fuel hits the poor with almost the same bills as the rich. Do you want that?

Revenue neutral. You don't understand it, and you're proven yourself impervious to learning, so I'm not sure why you bother to comment at all.

 

[paddymcdougall]

Re: Two simple questions for true believers

So granny is forced out of her big home that she raised her family in because she cannot afford the heating bills and the rich don't have to put up with all those poor people blocking up the roads as they cannot afford to travel.

Tax on fuel hits the poor with almost the same bills as the rich. Do you want that?

You need to read up more on the policies.

We have cap and trade here in California; no one is losing their home over it and it's working.

And many of the proposals do involve giving money back to people. But by pricing carbon at its real cost at the source, we drive decreased consumption, less global climate change, and alternative technologies can compete more fairly.

 

[WCH]

Re: Two simple questions for true believers

We are making progress, I just don't think we're making it fast enough. I don't think a cleaner planet is a partisan issue at all, we can all agree that it is better in principle. The partisan issue comes in the disagreement on the how to get there, how fast we can get there and what sacrifices need to be made on the way.

You mean how and who will pay for it. IMO, it's not an urgent matter. As long as we are moving forward is all that counts.

 

[ironhorse]

Re: Two simple questions for true believers

1. Advocate and vote for politicians who promote good environmental policy. Being more aware of your own carbon footprint is nice too, but fairly irrelevant in the big scheme.

2. Carbon cap and trade or a carbon tax- possibly a revenue neutral one that returns all the monies to the people.

And that's it? Vote for the right people and raise taxes and POOF global warming stops?

 

[ironhorse]

Re: Two simple questions for true believers

Lot of people have focused on q2, so I'll respond to q1:

Cut back on your personal use of fossil fuels. Install solar panels at your house to provide most of your power. Consider any plane trips you are planning - do you really have to take that trip? Consolidate trips when you use your car - car pool to work, or, when you run errands, try to cover multiple stops at the same time rather than going out on each errand individually. (I live 10 miles from the local town; and I work from home. I try to minimize my trips to town - when I do go, I do all my errands at the same time. So ideally I'm only going to town a couple days a week, or maybe 3 days. Of course there are weeks I have to go more often, but I try to minimize)

When you buy appliances, look for energy star appliances. If you have appliances that are older than 10 years, consider replacing them even if they are still working. When it is time to replace your car, consider a good hybrid (not like the hybrid trucks that still only get 16 miles to the gallon). Use LED or CFB lightbulbs. Use re-usable grocery bags. At all times, look for ways to reduce, reuse, recycle. Producing a new item uses energy.

Vote for politicians who will work to cut back our carbon emissions from industries. In California, we put a cap & trade program in place, and we are actually ahead of target in terms of carbon emissions.

I just finished "The Bone Clocks" by David Mitchell. I don't want to give away spoilers, but at the end his view of the world in the mid-2000s is pretty bleak.

We need to conserve gas where we can; and move to other kinds of fuel whereever we can. As someone mentioned, there are some things like airplanes that will have a very hard time moving away from oil for fuel. But for those places that can, let's look at alternative fuels.

In the long run, my personal belief is that we will fail. That no one will have the political will to get the world to cooperate and to combat global climate change. I foresee waves of refugees from low-lying countries, our coasts flooding, temperatures rising, food and water shortages. I think it's going to suck. But if people won't change, that will happen.

Three goofs disagrees with you. He says what you do on a personal level is largely irrelevant. Lets say everyone in the world suddenly did what you said. First do you think that is remotely possible and second if they did would the earth stop warming?

 

[ironhorse]

Re: Two simple questions for true believers

You need to read up more on the policies.

We have cap and trade here in California; no one is losing their home over it and it's working.

And many of the proposals do involve giving money back to people. But by pricing carbon at its real cost at the source, we drive decreased consumption, less global climate change, and alternative technologies can compete more fairly.

But isn't the AGW threat dire and immediate? Wouldn't these baby steps come too slow and too late to save the planet?

 

[paddymcdougall]

Re: Two simple questions for true believers

Three goofs disagrees with you. He says what you do on a personal level is largely irrelevant. Lets say everyone in the world suddenly did what you said. First do you think that is remotely possible and second if they did would the earth stop warming?

Well, not everyone in the world needs to do it; there are people in many countries who consume very little carbon fuel - think third world countries here, where people are too poor to drive much or take plane trips, where electricity is only available for a few hours, etc. I would ask that those near the Amazon STOP CUTTING DOWN ALL THE TREES. That would be a great help.

It's the people in the high-energy consuming countries, like the US, China, India who need to change - if we all did it it's a good start. It's not enough - we also need to convert industries away from coal and other carbon emitting substances. But it's a start.

And the earth will continue to warm even if we stopped all carbon-emitting activities right now. There's enough in the atmosphere that it will warm for awhile. It's a question of if we can stop it from warming too much.

While if just one person changes, it's largely irrelevant. But if 300 million people change on a personal level, I would think that would have an impact.

But if Ironhorse thinks the personal level is largely irrelevant, why did he bring it up in the op? or was it just a straw man type thing?

Here's a site with some ideas. I don't know if anyone can do all ten. But maybe we can all do some. I live off-grid, so I'm very aware of power consumption; I never leave lights on when I'm not in a room, and we've done a lot to minimize our power use. But unfortunately, I can't walk or bicycle to town; it's too far and the terrain is too tough for me to bike it. But I do minimize my trips, at least. And I do eat red meat, partly because I trust grass fed beef a bit more than factory chicken (although I do eat this as well because, well, can't have all my diet be red meat) and partly because I like it. So none of us are perfect as far as I know; but we can all work to reduce our carbon footprint a bit more.

Top 10 ways to reduce your CO2 emissions footprint | Brave New Climate

 

[paddymcdougall]

Re: Two simple questions for true believers

And by the way I am pretty pessimistic that people WILL change.... but if we did, yes, I think it would make a difference; it would help.

 

[Threegoofs]

Re: Two simple questions for true believers

And that's it? Vote for the right people and raise taxes and POOF global warming stops?

Amazing, isn't it?

I use the controls and cap and trade program put into place in 1990 for SO2 emissions.

Whiners like you complained that the sky would fall if it was implemented, and when it was, it was vastly less expensive and much more effective than projected.

We have the technology to take a huge bite out of carbon emissions. We just need the incentive to do it. That's a carbon tax.

It's also about personal responsibility. Pat your environmental costs right now, instead of making my kids do it for you.

 

[paddymcdougall]

Re: Two simple questions for true believers

But isn't the AGW threat dire and immediate? Wouldn't these baby steps come too slow and too late to save the planet?

No idea what you're looking for here. Yes, we should have done these steps 30 years ago. But waiting isn't going to make it any easier.

I've answered your op, what you can do to change things. If the steps referenced by many in this thread aren't enough, then I suggest you read the last section of "The Bone Clocks" (by David Mitchell) to get a picture of your future.

 

[ironhorse]

Re: Two simple questions for true believers

Well, not everyone in the world needs to do it; there are people in many countries who consume very little carbon fuel - think third world countries here, where people are too poor to drive much or take plane trips, where electricity is only available for a few hours, etc. I would ask that those near the Amazon STOP CUTTING DOWN ALL THE TREES. That would be a great help.

It's the people in the high-energy consuming countries, like the US, China, India who need to change - if we all did it it's a good start. It's not enough - we also need to convert industries away from coal and other carbon emitting substances. But it's a start.

And the earth will continue to warm even if we stopped all carbon-emitting activities right now. There's enough in the atmosphere that it will warm for awhile. It's a question of if we can stop it from warming too much.

While if just one person changes, it's largely irrelevant. But if 300 million people change on a personal level, I would think that would have an impact.

But if Ironhorse thinks the personal level is largely irrelevant, why did he bring it up in the op? or was it just a straw man type thing?

Here's a site with some ideas. I don't know if anyone can do all ten. But maybe we can all do some. I live off-grid, so I'm very aware of power consumption; I never leave lights on when I'm not in a room, and we've done a lot to minimize our power use. But unfortunately, I can't walk or bicycle to town; it's too far and the terrain is too tough for me to bike it. But I do minimize my trips, at least. And I do eat red meat, partly because I trust grass fed beef a bit more than factory chicken (although I do eat this as well because, well, can't have all my diet be red meat) and partly because I like it. So none of us are perfect as far as I know; but we can all work to reduce our carbon footprint a bit more.

Top 10 ways to reduce your CO2 emissions footprint | Brave New Climate

Three goofs is the one that said personal changes are irrelevant not me. The thing I don't think you understand is the third world who uses very little carbon wants to and will in short order. These nice little changes you propose are fine but they will do absolutely nothing to stop the "crisis" of AGW. That is what we are told every day, it is a crisis!