U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-03-2019, 12:39 PM
 
Location: Federal Way, WA
662 posts, read 263,294 times
Reputation: 677

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1 View Post
Reducing CO2, which is NOT a pollutant will do nothing.
CO2 is not a pollutant, but reducing it will reduce at least a half dozen other pollutants including mercury, sulfur dioxide, ozone, and small particulate matter. So reducing CO2 will definitely do something. Even if it doesn't slow climate change, it will improve air and water quality. Even if other countries don't participate, America will have cleaner air and water. Farming yields are negatively impacted by higher ground level ozone, millions are lost annually from decreased yields where ozone pollution is higher, so decreasing will improve agricultural output.

You can think climate change is an evil communist plan to destroy hard working people and give the money to Al Gore's sock puppet if you want. Still doesn't change the fact that reducing CO2 has many benefits that have nothing to do with the climate.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-03-2019, 01:18 PM
 
9,792 posts, read 3,631,229 times
Reputation: 5683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Rambler View Post
You are making the highly unlikely assumption that...
No different from the silly assumptions made by that "analysis" that predicts the $69 trillion hit to the global GDP over the next 80 years, and I actually went far more conservative than the actual growth curve of the global GDP for the last 80 years.

I purposely gave full credit to the Moody's hypothetical and then used a super conservative average growth (about 60% of historical) to make my point.

But even if we just use their final tally and then apply it to just this year, the global GDP is $88 trillion, and the inflation adjusted contribution to the year 2100 total of $69 trillion is $350 billion. That's the total for the entire world in 2019, according to Moody's "analysis" and basic math. That represents less than half a percent of the total, as in, like raising the current price of gasoline by 1 cent per gallon.

In other words, not a really big deal...even if you accept their worst case scenario as a 100% rock solid prediction of the future, and you also accept the myth that any future prediction can be measured against as if it were guaranteed to have happened, if only some other thing had not. Quantum mechanics and chaos theory clearly show you cannot do that, but even if you could, this worst case is like a hiccup during an earthquake...i.e. too small to really notice.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2019, 02:06 PM
 
33,414 posts, read 30,941,336 times
Reputation: 19951
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFit View Post
CO2 is not a pollutant, but reducing it will reduce at least a half dozen other pollutants including mercury, sulfur dioxide, ozone, and small particulate matter. So reducing CO2 will definitely do something. Even if it doesn't slow climate change, it will improve air and water quality. Even if other countries don't participate, America will have cleaner air and water. Farming yields are negatively impacted by higher ground level ozone, millions are lost annually from decreased yields where ozone pollution is higher, so decreasing will improve agricultural output.

You can think climate change is an evil communist plan to destroy hard working people and give the money to Al Gore's sock puppet if you want. Still doesn't change the fact that reducing CO2 has many benefits that have nothing to do with the climate.

gee i didnt realize that the compound CO2 included mercury, SO2, O3, and particulate matter. perhaps a chemistry lesson is due for some of us, perhaps YOU?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2019, 02:27 PM
 
Location: NJ
19,571 posts, read 14,045,925 times
Reputation: 13660
Default the longer we wait for what?????????????

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Rambler View Post
- MORE

While some wish to focus on the costs of a switch to green energy, the costs of doing nothing are far more dire. Moody's is not run by a bunch of crazed environmentalists seeking world dominium nor is Moody's in the business of publishing wild-eyed diatribes about imaginary financial costs. If anything their estimates are far too low.

The longer we wait, the greater the damage and the higher the cost of trying to fix something that's broken. A carbon tax is pennies by comparison.
the longer we wait for what?????????????


the cost is based on ineffective and symbolic attempts by the government to reverse global warming. The feds have not been able to show any measurable progress to date. Apparently the rest of the world isn't really on board either as they stand in line for taxpayer cash to squander and divert to private bank accounts.


the effort needs to focus on adaptation, not reversal of a global event of nature.


All the energy and worry is based on theoretical projections for which the government is well known to get wrong. If the government's ability to predict the cost of any infrastructure project and time to complete stay within 10k percent of the original projection, it would be the day pigs fly.


We have entrusted the people who can't get the food pyramid straightened out with saving life on earth.


Good luck with that.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2019, 05:23 PM
 
Location: Ohio
23,151 posts, read 16,650,669 times
Reputation: 19747
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Rambler View Post
While some wish to focus on the costs of a switch to green energy, the costs of doing nothing are far more dire. Moody's is not run by a bunch of crazed environmentalists seeking world dominium nor is Moody's in the business of publishing wild-eyed diatribes about imaginary financial costs. If anything their estimates are far too low.
Their estimates are all wrong.

Show us any point in Earth's 4.5 Billion year history where the climate was warmer and drier.

You can't, because it never happened, and never will happen and there's a reason why it never happened and never will happen.

Warmer climate is always wetter, and it creates more arable land, so the fear-mongering predictions by climate nutters of mass starvation will never materialize.

Also, it's an irrefutable fact that without exception, without fail, the sea level always rises 3 meter to 14 meters during an Inter-Glacial Period.

So, whether CO2 levels are 260 ppm CO2 or 460 ppm CO2 makes no difference. Sea levels are going to rise and there ain't a damn thing anyone living or dead or who will ever live can do to stop it.

Governments do not need to spend even $0.01 to combat rising sea levels.

The Free Market will take care of it for you for totally free.

As the cost of flood insurance rises, people, business and governments won't be able to afford the cost and as insurance companies stop issuing policies, financial institutions will stop lending money for new development and stop lending money for redevelopment of existing properties.

Problem solved.

There's not going to be a mass migration like the climate nutters claim.

The only thing government needs to do is for municipalities, counties and States to enact a law or ordinance that says if your property is vacant for 7 years or more, you have to demolish the property and restore the land to its original state as best as possible at their own expense, not that of tax-payers. That will go a long way to mitigate flood damage.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2019, 05:55 PM
 
3,942 posts, read 1,665,843 times
Reputation: 4440
Moody's couldn't predict that house prices were going to fall two years out, and you believe they can put a dollar amount on something like this 80 years in the future?

It's really sad how gullible people are when someone tells you what you want to hear.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:54 PM.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top