Author Topic: Addressing climate change  (Read 7700 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline segnosaur

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1320
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #120 on: May 28, 2019, 10:35:03 am »
So please tell me what the difference is between your belief that zero emission technology is economically viaable and my belief that adaptation is a more cost effect way to deal with the consequences of CO2 emissions? I can at least support my view by looking at the costs of various technology options today and extrapolating a bit to take into account incremental improvements. Your view that future tech will magically solve all of the problems has no basis other than blind faith.
Keep in mind that one of the problems of the whole "Don't worry about CO2/global warming, just pay to adapt" is that not all the problems with global warming are happening with people who can afford to pay for the change.

So, here in Canada we have money. We can crank up the air conditioners if it gets hot. Build stronger levees to prevent flooding that might occur with climate change. But what about the people in (for example) sub-saharan Africa? They don't have the same financial resources to handle climate change as we do here in Canada.

Another problem is that sometimes adaptations simply won't work. So, you mess up the climate and can't grow food as well in places like the Holland marsh, or on the prairies... You can't just move that food production to another area where the (now warmer) client has a better growing season because the soil likely isn't appropriate.

Plus, the costs of dealing with global warming/climate change are often rather... sneaky. Take for example the cost of dealing with invasive species. Or the human health risks from things like the spread of the Zika virus. Those problems will become larger as the temperature goes up, but you won't often find those costs on a balance sheet when you do any sort of comparison.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-climate-change-is-helping-invasive-species-take-over-180947630/
https://www.livescience.com/55632-deadly-diseases-emerge-from-global-warming.html

I'm not necessarily saying we need to immediately stop all fossil fuel usage. Its going to take a little time for our technology and economy to adapt to changes. But in the long run, we will be better off if we limit the use of fossil fuels than if we don't.

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8383
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #121 on: May 28, 2019, 10:40:35 am »
I just farted like 5 times, thus worsening climate change.
I queef, therefore I am.

Offline segnosaur

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1320
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #122 on: May 28, 2019, 10:58:28 am »
I just farted like 5 times, thus worsening climate change.
Please proceed immediately to the nearest disintegration chamber for processing.

Offline poochy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #123 on: May 28, 2019, 09:04:32 pm »
For sure. Renewables have a lot of room to grow, and will in leaps and bounds.
Currently only at 2.2%.

And we have to wind down nuclear too.
And there's the damming issue with hydro power, counted as a renewable, but iffy.

And transmission.

We have challenges.
But I believe scientists love challenges.
And capitalists will follow the money as investment shifts.

lol, this is exactly the problem the world has, dummies who have a vote but dont have ANY knowledge of science.  O sure they vote left wing so they presume its they who are scientific and everybody else is the troglodyte.

Here is how you solve climate change, you cant.

Here is how you do your best to reduce CO2 emissions in the real world, where science and technology have real limits, where the laws of thermodynamics apply and energy isn't easily obtained by hoping the sun shines.

A MASSIVE investment in nuclear technology, investing huge amounts in developing more efficient and safer Nuclear tech, completely ignoring anyone who even dares have an eco nut opinion on the subject, there is no other sustainable and feasible tech that can sustain our demands.  Now you go ahead and believe any loony tunes thing you like, because that's your right, but you are actually the problem, were it not for people like you and the anti science left nuclear tech would be farther along, and more widespread, but what we have is the opposite where politicians have run away from it because know nothings demanded they do so.

Or we can simply accept that we wont stop global warming and just prepare for the consequences, o but i know, its just a simple matter of dotting the landscape with wind turbines and solar panels.  You really don't know anything about the subject, and there are soooo many of you, you exist in a dream world.

Agree Agree x 1 Winner Winner x 1 Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #124 on: May 28, 2019, 09:09:01 pm »
lol, this is exactly the problem the world has, dummies who have a vote but dont have ANY knowledge of science.  O sure they vote left wing so they presume its they who are scientific and everybody else is the troglodyte.

Here is how you solve climate change, you cant.

Here is how you do your best to reduce CO2 emissions in the real world, where science and technology have real limits, where the laws of thermodynamics apply and energy isn't easily obtained by hoping the sun shines.

A MASSIVE investment in nuclear technology, investing huge amounts in developing more efficient and safer Nuclear tech, completely ignoring anyone who even dares have an eco nut opinion on the subject, there is no other sustainable and feasible tech that can sustain our demands.  Now you go ahead and believe any loony tunes thing you like, because that's your right, but you are actually the problem, were it not for people like you and the anti science left nuclear tech would be farther along, and more widespread, but what we have is the opposite where politicians have run away from it because know nothings demanded they do so.

Or we can simply accept that we wont stop global warming and just prepare for the consequences, o but i know, its just a simple matter of dotting the landscape with wind turbines and solar panels.  You really don't know anything about the subject, and there are soooo many of you, you exist in a dream world.

Hilarious. I suggest you take that post home to mlw where it won't be laughed at so much.

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #125 on: June 13, 2019, 03:54:16 am »
Why protesters should be wary of '12 years to climate breakdown' rhetoric
I helped write the IPCC 1.5°C report the number apparently comes from. But the truth is better – and worse – than that.

https://theconversation.com/why-protesters-should-be-wary-of-12-years-to-climate-breakdown-rhetoric-115489

As the relevant lead author of the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C, I spent several days last October, literally under a spotlight, explaining to delegates of the world’s governments what we could, and could not, say about how close we are to that level of warming.
...
I say the majority, because there will be unfortunate exceptions. One of the most insidious myths about climate change is the pretence that we are all in it together. People ask me whether I’m kept awake at night by the prospect of five degrees of warming. I don’t think we’ll make it to five degrees. I’m far more worried about geopolitical breakdown as the injustices of climate change emerge as we steam from two to three degrees.

What about the other interpretation of the IPCC’s 12 years: that we have 12 years to act? What our report said was, in scenarios with a one-in-two to two-in-three chance of keeping global warming below 1.5°C, emissions are reduced to around half their present level by 2030. That doesn’t mean we have 12 years to act: it means we have to act now, and even if we do, success is not guaranteed.

And if we don’t halve emissions by 2030, will we have lost the battle and just have to hunker down and survive? Of course not. The IPCC is clear that, even reducing emissions as fast as possible, we can barely keep temperatures below 1.5°C. So every year that goes by in which we aren’t reducing emissions is another 40 billion tonnes of CO₂ that we are expecting today’s teenagers to clean back out of the atmosphere in order to preserve warm water corals or Arctic ice.

Assuming people will still want to feed themselves and not turn the world over to biofuels, then scrubbing CO₂ out of the atmosphere currently costs £150-£500 per tonne, plus the cost of permanent disposal. So those 40 billion tonnes of CO₂ represent a clean-up liability accumulating at a cool £8 trillion per year, which is more or less what the world currently spends on energy.

So here is a conversation young activists could have with their parents: first work out what the parents’ CO₂ emissions were last year (there are various carbon calculators online – and the average is about seven tonnes of fossil CO₂ per person in Europe). Then multiply by £200 per tonne of CO₂, and suggest the parents pop that amount into a trust fund in case their kids have to clean up after them in the 2040s.

« Last Edit: June 13, 2019, 03:57:15 am by Granny »

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8383
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #126 on: June 13, 2019, 09:21:16 am »
Why protesters should be wary of '12 years to climate breakdown' rhetoric

I'm all for preventing human-caused climate change, but the 12 years-or-doom rhetoric is pretty ridiculous.
I queef, therefore I am.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #127 on: June 13, 2019, 09:57:29 am »
I'm not necessarily saying we need to immediately stop all fossil fuel usage. Its going to take a little time for our technology and economy to adapt to changes. But in the long run, we will be better off if we limit the use of fossil fuels than if we don't.
I am fine with investing in technology that is economical and actually replaces what we already have. The issue is there are few options available to use and some of those (nuclear) are not politically viable. The net result is adaptation is not a choice: it is the only option we have. My main concern about the mitigation or nothing activists is they are pushing govt to make promises that we can't keep based on delusional fantasies. This diverts resources from spending on things that might  actually help and, in the worse case, damage our economy in ways that leave us less able to adapt as needed.

CO2 mitigation causes real harm if it means future adaption is harder.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #128 on: June 13, 2019, 09:59:45 am »
I'm all for preventing human-caused climate change, but the 12 years-or-doom rhetoric is pretty ridiculous.
They have been saying that for the last 30 years. The end is always just around the corner. What is amazing is these people completely lack any self awareness and keep making these claims even though they have been discredited over and over.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2019, 10:28:43 am by TimG »

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6533
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #129 on: June 13, 2019, 10:21:08 am »
My main concern about the mitigation or nothing activists is they are pushing govt to make promises that we can't keep based on delusional fantasies. This diverts resources from spending on things that might  actually help and, in the worse case, damage our economy in ways that leave us less able to adapt as needed.

megaStrawman! Name your so-called "mitigation or nothing" activists... name them!

CO2 mitigation causes real harm if it means future adaption is harder.

yabut, unless emissions are reduced... stabilized... waddabout adaptation upon adaptation upon adaptation... no biggee, hey!

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6533
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #130 on: June 13, 2019, 10:30:46 am »
I'm all for preventing human-caused climate change, but the 12 years-or-doom rhetoric is pretty ridiculous.

and the scientist's 'The Conversation' article... and its linked to Guardian article aren't pushing said "doom rhetoric" - speaking to temperature rise and recognized/expected impacts isn't "doom rhetoric"! Did you actually read the articles?
Like Like x 1 View List

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8383
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #131 on: June 13, 2019, 02:37:29 pm »
and the scientist's 'The Conversation' article... and its linked to Guardian article aren't pushing said "doom rhetoric" - speaking to temperature rise and recognized/expected impacts isn't "doom rhetoric"! Did you actually read the articles?

Not doom rhetoric?  "Climate change catastrophe!"  Pictures of burning fires out of control!  Scarrry AHHHHHHHHH!

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]


"Overwhelmed by climate change? Here's what you can do!".  Ya, don't read the Guardian LOL.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2019, 02:39:15 pm by Poonlight Graham »
I queef, therefore I am.

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #132 on: June 13, 2019, 10:12:33 pm »
I am fine with investing in technology that is economical and actually replaces what we already have. The issue is there are few options available to use and some of those (nuclear) are not politically viable. The net result is adaptation is not a choice: it is the only option we have. My main concern about the mitigation or nothing activists is they are pushing govt to make promises that we can't keep based on delusional fantasies. This diverts resources from spending on things that might  actually help and, in the worse case, damage our economy in ways that leave us less able to adapt as needed.

CO2 mitigation causes real harm if it means future adaption is harder.

Such horsesh!t.
Anything to keep the oil money flowing, eh?!

Quote
They have been saying that for the last 30 years. The end is always just around the corner. What is amazing is these people completely lack any self awareness and keep making these claims even though they have been discredited over and over.

Nonsense.

and the scientist's 'The Conversation' article... and its linked to Guardian article aren't pushing said "doom rhetoric" - speaking to temperature rise and recognized/expected impacts isn't "doom rhetoric"! Did you actually read the articles?

No of course not.
He has a programmed CAPP sales pitch to deliver that shall not be distracted by facts.  Lol

Online Boges

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1289
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #133 on: June 20, 2019, 01:16:48 pm »
We need to move forward and implement cleaner technologies. More Recycling. More Conservation.

What we don't need is governments who think we can tax our way out of the problem.

Carbon Pricing needs to be pretty steep to stop people from actually travelling to a work place. And what if Carbon Pricing was so high that people stopped travelling to parts of the world that rely on tourism?

The Federal Carbon Pricing plan does very little to curb emissions. People just absorb the costs and continue with life as normal.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Addressing climate change
« Reply #134 on: June 20, 2019, 01:31:45 pm »
The Federal Carbon Pricing plan does very little to curb emissions. People just absorb the costs and continue with life as normal.
The trouble with the economic models that make most economists think that carbon pricing is wonderful is the models don't care if people suffer by going without because it costs too much or if they actually found an alternative that lets them do the same thing without emissions. All the models care about is demand CO2 emission producing activities goes down. Politicians, OTOH, have to care if a policy results in suffering even if it reduces emissions.