Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People are unsupportive of the left's politically driven "climate change" agenda, not because they do not believe the climate is changing, but because they know that it is, that it always has been, and always will be. The very suggestion that we should try to stop the Earth's climate from changing is truly absurd.
And when they find the prescriptions advocated by the left are, at the end of the day, reduced to the left's standard predictable economic agenda of increased taxes, redistribution of wealth and much more government control with the left presiding, all they can do is laugh. And as well they should.
"It's not true that all the technologies are available and we just need the political will to deploy them,"
Quote:
Lewis's numbers show the enormous challenge we face. The world used 14 trillion watts (14 terawatts) of power in 2006. Assuming minimal population growth (to 9 billion people), slow economic growth (1.6 percent a year, practically recession level) and—this is key—unprecedented energy efficiency (improvements of 500 percent relative to current U.S. levels, worldwide), it will use 28 terawatts in 2050. (In a business-as-usual scenario, we would need 45 terawatts.) Simple physics shows that in order to keep CO2 to 450 ppm, 26.5 of those terawatts must be zero-carbon. That's a lot of solar, wind, hydro, biofuels and nuclear, especially since renewables kicked in a measly 0.2 terawatts in 2006 and nuclear provided 0.9 terawatts. Are you a fan of nuclear? To get 10 terawatts, less than half of what we'll need in 2050, Lewis calculates, we'd have to build 10,000 reactors, or one every other day starting now. Do you like wind? If you use every single breeze that blows on land, you'll get 10 or 15 terawatts. Since it's impossible to capture all the wind, a more realistic number is 3 terawatts, or 1 million state-of-the art turbines, and even that requires storing the energy—something we don't know how to do—for when the wind doesn't blow. Solar? To get 10 terawatts by 2050, Lewis calculates, we'd need to cover 1 million roofs with panels every day from now until then. "It would take an army,"
How much would it cost to get Co2 emissions down to 1990 levels?
Quote:
Will it Cost $45 Trillion or $545 Trillion to Reduce CO2 Levels by Half
Then ask the question, has warmth in the past meant drought and desertification? How has agriculture historically fared as a result of the past warming periods? How has Earth fared as a result of cooler climates?
While I certainly have respect for the scientific process, and I certainly have respect for people who are professionals in their field. In the case where the science doesn't always agree, and especially in the case where the science can take on incredible biases because of funding and associated political reasons. I have a tendency to prefer my own logic and reasoning to that of others.
To me, logic dictates a warmer Earth is a more hospitable Earth. I'm looking forward to the Sahara desert turning into fertile grasslands.
I couldn't possibly respond to everything you've said. It seemed to contain a LOT of assumptions about who I am, where I'm from, how I think, etc... which is really odd and has nothing to do with how well I understand this topic or whether or not I'm capable of critical thinking.
I understand you're more comfortable assuming I can't grasp your astounding insights into the matter and that all it takes is you laying out some basic argument that I hadn't conceived of, but I'm afraid I've heard it all before.
First-- you seem to have absolutely no concept of what government is. A capitalist government is going to give corporations free reign and join the push to get people to consume. They want everyone to have their own car, a huge house, lots of electricity, etc.
But that doesn't mean that public transportation is somehow bad because it's connected to government... that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It isn't government that is bad, it's the government's PRIORITIES that are backwards. If the Republican party was eliminated completely and the Greens became the official opposition to the Democrats, you would see massive positive changes.
But of course, the US isn't ready for a shift to the left because they were built on destructive free market capitalist ideals... and some of them can't see that those ideals have now turned against them and are threatening to destroy the planet, while others can see it but are either too apathetic, too busy, too depressed or too disinterested to do anything about it. So the US has a right-wing party, an even more right wing party, and a far right party within the even more right wing party... and all of them care more about the economy than the ecosystems.
As for the rest of what you're saying, it seems like you've just looked at a handful of graphs and listened to a bunch of denier rhetoric and decided that global warming is perfectly okay, therefore science is a conspiracy, even though science is also the reason you have those graphs in the first place.
Agricultural experts think food prices will be higher and food will be more scarce:
Obviously there are some positive outcomes with climate change, but to say that climate change is going to benefit the Earth and everyone on it is hopelessly naive.
The question isn't whether there will be some good things about it, the question is whether those good effects will outweigh the bad effects, and for how long.
Plants can only take so much heat before they die, or before the water dries up.
Cities can only take so much flooding before they need to abandoned.
Farms can only take so much drought before the land is useless.
AGW doesn't mean we're controlling the climate and the warming will stop at a point where conditions are the most advantageous. It means we're warming it up with absolutely no idea what other types of climate drivers, feedback loops or adverse conditions that warming will eventually trigger.
The planet isn't the same one that existed during the last interglacial, isn't the same one that existed millions of years ago or whatever it is you're trying to say with the whole 'the climate has been warmer'... mostly because those versions of the planet didn't have 7 billion people trying to make money and get food and water however they can. They didn't have agriculture, deforestation, air travel, etc.
Last edited by Spatula City; 02-08-2015 at 09:12 AM..
When AI takes off, it will get better even faster.
The biggest challenge is making sure we get there.
I'm not ignoring technological progress at all. What would it would cost to deploy this technology (once it exists) on a global level? That's the problem. It may take many decades before they can make a global impact on emissions. Of course renewable energy will continue to grow, but the pace is still nowhere near traditional fuels.
In the mean time people need cheap reliable energy.
I'm not ignoring technological progress at all. What would it would cost to deploy this technology (once it exists) on a global level? That's the problem. It may take many decades before they can make a global impact on emissions. Of course renewable energy will continue to grow, but the pace is still nowhere near traditional fuels.
Removing subsidies to oil companies would be a great way to pay for the switch.
$93 billion in profits (in an off year) aren't being returned to anyone you know... they're definitely not going towards helping break the world's dependence on oil.
There is absolutely NO reason for that much money to be going into an industry that is actively fighting against technological progress and actively fighting for a less habitable planet.
It would be a simple transfer of wealth from one area to another... the only people that would be hurt by it already have more wealth than you or I could possibly imagine-- and I suppose the people who were forced into energy stocks by low interest rates, but if they know what they're doing they should already be diversified enough not to need to worry too much.
Of course, this isn't the world we're living in and all of this free market BS and American libertarian rhetoric is extremely worrying. It's obvious we can't continue to consume blindly and undermine science for much longer without it having serious consequences for future generations.
The only thing stopping solar energy from evolving into the number one energy source in the world is the greed of a very wealthy minority and their stranglehold on the governments of the world.
Removing subsidies to oil companies would be a great way to pay for the switch.
$93 billion in profits (in an off year) aren't being returned to anyone you know...
Au contraire...
Quote:
"This shift of business ownership from rich people to working people may be the greatest economic transformation since the Industrial Revolution.
...So what does all this mean? Well, for starters, it should lead to an end of complaints about the profits of corporations and allegations about 'greedy corporations.' After all, much of that profit now goes toward the current and future retirement incomes of working people."
Everyone who contributes to or benefits from an IRA,401K, pension fund (public employee, union, or private sector),mutual fund, annuity, or whole life insurance policy, etc.,DEPENDS on corporate profits. Just so you understand, I'll reiterate... they DEPEND on corporate profits.
How anyone fails to connect the dots on how so very many Americans' retirement plans (pensions, IRAs/401Ks, annuities, etc.) absolutely depend on corporate profits is beyond me. Don't people have critical thinking skills anymore?
Everyone who contributes to or benefits from an IRA,401K, pension fund (public employee, union, or private sector),mutual fund, annuity, or whole life insurance policy, etc.,DEPENDS on corporate profits. Just so you understand, I'll reiterate... they DEPEND on corporate profits.
How anyone fails to connect the dots on how so very many Americans' retirement plans (pensions, IRAs/401Ks, annuities, etc.) absolutely depend on corporate profits is beyond me. Don't people have critical thinking skills anymore?
Your article is from 2005... remember how all of that 'removing the barriers' worked out?
The thing is, it's still going on. People are being FORCED to invest in things like oil because low interest rates mean they're just going to lose their savings to inflation.
I can't believe that people actually have the nerve to claim that investing in oil companies is somehow akin to owning the company or having any say whatsoever in how society operates. Is he seriously comparing pension funds and stock portfolios to ownership?
Wages are NOT going up, most of that money is NOT being returned to investors, and it isn't being put to use in a way that benefits society as a whole. Your average Joe Stocks and Bonds may get some pathetically small, diluted part of it that gives them enough to make it through retirement, but forcing people to depend on oligopolies isn't empowering them-- that goes beyond absurd and ends up sounding like some sort of evil religion.
And what's more is that it doesn't matter how much money you have in retirement if society is destabilized by the effects of climate change and the cost of living goes way way up. All of that fake money that is currently flowing into everyone's stock portfolios might make them happy right now, but it's not going to end well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
