Author Topic: The End of the World Thread  (Read 390 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline wilber

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6509
Re: The End of the World Thread
« Reply #30 on: May 06, 2019, 11:12:14 am »
I make no such claim. I only claim that we have limited resources to do anything and pissing away those resources on reducing CO2 is misguided because the tech we have to reduce CO2 emissions will only have a marginal impact at best. It is simply dumb. The resources that we do have need to be directed at adaptation. Whether we like it or not mitigation has to be a secondary objective and only considered when cost effective technologies are available.


And yet you believe we can overcome the consequences with technology even though that technology may not exist. It's kind of like the smoker saying, ya I know it can cause cancer but I'll deal with that when I get it.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: The End of the World Thread
« Reply #31 on: May 06, 2019, 11:21:39 am »
And yet you believe we can overcome the consequences with technology even though that technology may not exist. It's kind of like the smoker saying, ya I know it can cause cancer but I'll deal with that when I get it.
The tech we need to deal with the consequences is the same tech we have been using for millennia. We are not depending on unknown tech break throughs that may or may not magically appear on a convenient schedule like we are with any CO2 mitigation efforts. It is also about playing the odds. We can't know that the adaptation strategy will be enough but given what we know it is certainly more likely to accomplish something useful.

The tobacco analogy is stupid because no one needs nicotine to live. Our societies would collapse without fossil fuels and that is not likely to change much over the next 30 years.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2019, 11:36:07 am by TimG »

Offline wilber

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6509
Re: The End of the World Thread
« Reply #32 on: May 06, 2019, 01:15:09 pm »
How do you know the tech exists, have you done blind studies in the consequences.

Itís not a stupid analogy, after all the tech may exist to cure lung cancer by the time the smoker gets it.

Who is saying we have to stop using fossil fuels right away. You arenít even willing to begin the process.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2019, 01:17:57 pm by wilber »
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: The End of the World Thread
« Reply #33 on: May 06, 2019, 01:19:03 pm »
I only claim that we have limited resources to do anything and pissing away those resources on reducing CO2 is misguided because the tech we have to reduce CO2 emissions will only have a marginal impact at best.

I agree we have limited resources. Those limited resources are our natural resources, not the artificial society created ones.

I am arguing that if people migrate it is not because of climate change - it is because of incompetent governments that are not able to meet their needs

I didn't know you were a communist.
Funny Funny x 1 View List

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: The End of the World Thread
« Reply #34 on: May 06, 2019, 01:24:29 pm »
How do you know the tech exists, have you done blind studies in the consequences.
At the end of the day the consequence is weather. We deal with weather all of the time and have the tech to manage it. Even rising seas have been managed by humans for centuries.

Itís not a stupid analogy, after all the tech may exist to cure lung cancer by the time the smoker gets it.
It is stupid because there is no rational reason for the smoking to keep smoker other than a desire to get high. For society today getting rid of fossil fuels is like telling someone to stop eating. Choosing to stop using them is simply not an option at this time or for the foreseeable future.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2019, 01:31:49 pm by TimG »

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: The End of the World Thread
« Reply #35 on: May 06, 2019, 01:30:58 pm »
I agree we have limited resources. Those limited resources are our natural resources, not the artificial society created ones.
False dichotomy. Humans cannot do things collectively without an economy producing more than it needs. It also means our ability to do things collectively is limited by the productive capacity of the economy. Aggressive attempts to reduce CO2 would diminish the productive capacity of the economy and therefore limit our ability to adapt.

Quote
I didn't know you were a communist.
There is a huge range of views on government between communism and anarcho-capitalism.  Saying that government is necessary does not mean government should be involved in everything. Incidentally, communist governments are examples of extremely incompetent governments that cause huge harm (e.g. Mao's great leap forward).
« Last Edit: May 06, 2019, 02:34:00 pm by TimG »

Offline wilber

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6509
Re: The End of the World Thread
« Reply #36 on: May 06, 2019, 05:43:44 pm »
At the end of the day the consequence is weather. We deal with weather all of the time and have the tech to manage it. Even rising seas have been managed by humans for centuries.


Rising sea levels are not weather. Rising water temperatures are not weather. Warming oceans aren't able to absorb as much O2. Rising ocean CO2 levels increase, acidification. Both have consequences for its biosphere. The oceans also serve as a buffer that and without it, surface temperature rises would be much higher.

You really have no clue what you are talking about when you claim we can adapt or mitigate.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2019, 05:58:02 pm by wilber »
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC
Agree Agree x 3 View List

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: The End of the World Thread
« Reply #37 on: May 06, 2019, 06:17:52 pm »
You really have no clue what you are talking about when you claim we can adapt or mitigate.
Same is true of you. No one has any idea what the future will bring. We can only make try to make bets that are most likely to leave us in a reasonable situation. That said, we do have a pretty good handle on the energy tech that we have today and the cost and timescales required to switch to something else. So we can say with a fairly high degree of confidence that mitigation is doomed strategy. It won't work unless there is some break through tech appears (which we don't have now). To make matters worse, if you assume that the worst case scenarios are remotely plausible then mitigation becomes even less viable because we simply do not have the time. Adaptation is only viable option on the table. The only difference is whether it takes 15 years and trillions wasted before people accept this or if we can avoid the wasted resources and focus on what we will end up doing anyways.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2019, 06:20:28 pm by TimG »

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: The End of the World Thread
« Reply #38 on: May 06, 2019, 06:33:42 pm »
Same is true of you. No one has any idea what the future will bring. We can only make try to make bets that are most likely to leave us in a reasonable situation. That said, we do have a pretty good handle on the energy tech that we have today and the cost and timescales required to switch to something else. So we can say with a fairly high degree of confidence that mitigation is doomed strategy. It won't work unless there is some break through tech appears (which we don't have now). To make matters worse, if you assume that the worst case scenarios are remotely plausible then mitigation becomes even less viable because we simply do not have the time. Adaptation is only viable option on the table. The only difference is whether it takes 15 years and trillions wasted before people accept this or if we can avoid the wasted resources and focus on what we will end up doing anyways.

It isn't either/or.
It's how much and where and when.
We already have the technologies. It's a question of scaling them up, and scaling fossil fuels down.
In case you haven't noticed, the price of fossil fuels is way down because the demand is shifting to renewables.
I have great faith in young business and industry leaders to see the writing on the wall and shift investments and efforts to industries that will be profitable - are profitable now and will be in the long term in helping us mitigate and adapt to climate change effects.

If we've still got all our eggs in the fossil fuel basket, we might want to rethink that energy strategy. 
« Last Edit: May 06, 2019, 08:00:45 pm by Granny »

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: The End of the World Thread
« Reply #39 on: May 06, 2019, 06:51:34 pm »
Unlike you, I have great faith in young business and industry leaders to see the writing on the wall and shift investments and efforts to industries that will be profitable in helping us mitigate and adapt to climate change effects.
You can wish for unicorns and fairy dust too. Just as likely. Your own lack of knowledge is part of the problem. Renewables are not a substitute for baseload. We need nuclear, coal and gas (not enough hydro available to supply our needs). If EVs actually take off we the need for new baseload will become acute and that baseload has to come from coal or gas unless public opinion decides to accept nuclear.

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: The End of the World Thread
« Reply #40 on: May 06, 2019, 06:56:45 pm »
Renewables are not a substitute for baseload.

You are looking at things backwards. Instead of building on baseload, look at peaking plants to shore up renewables. Hydro for the most part can be a peaking plant. Natural gas turbines make excellent peaking plants. Yes coal and nuclear are more baseload.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: The End of the World Thread
« Reply #41 on: May 06, 2019, 07:01:51 pm »
You are looking at things backwards. Instead of building on baseload, look at peaking plants to shore up renewables. Hydro for the most part can be a peaking plant. Natural gas turbines make excellent peaking plants. Yes coal and nuclear are more baseload.
Peaking plants are inefficient and expensive way to produce energy. Baseload is an essential requirement for a cost effective electric grid and that is not going to change any time soon.
Disagree Disagree x 1 View List

Offline wilber

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6509
Re: The End of the World Thread
« Reply #42 on: May 06, 2019, 07:44:20 pm »
Same is true of you. No one has any idea what the future will bring. We can only make try to make bets that are most likely to leave us in a reasonable situation. That said, we do have a pretty good handle on the energy tech that we have today and the cost and timescales required to switch to something else. So we can say with a fairly high degree of confidence that mitigation is doomed strategy. It won't work unless there is some break through tech appears (which we don't have now). To make matters worse, if you assume that the worst case scenarios are remotely plausible then mitigation becomes even less viable because we simply do not have the time. Adaptation is only viable option on the table. The only difference is whether it takes 15 years and trillions wasted before people accept this or if we can avoid the wasted resources and focus on what we will end up doing anyways.

How do you know we don't have time, you seem to know everything else? A worst case scenario means we are screwed no matter what we do. You don't even know what adapt means because you don't know what you are going to adapt to. You are just hoping for the best and ignoring the rest.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: The End of the World Thread
« Reply #43 on: May 06, 2019, 08:48:40 pm »
How do you know we don't have time, you seem to know everything else?
It is called playing the odds given the information we have now. It is not about knowing because no one knows what will happen. For example, we could get some break though in energy production tech that completely changes the economics of emission free energy production. But can't assume it will happen and need to be prepared for the real possibility that it does not happen and we can't get rid of CO2 emissions without destroying the economy.

A worst case scenario means we are screwed no matter what we do.
And the societies that will win in such a scenario will be the ones that did not engage in aggressive CO2 emissions control that only increases the cost of adaptation.

You are just hoping for the best and ignoring the rest.
I can say the same about anyone who thinks CO2 emission reduction is a viable strategy.

Offline wilber

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6509
Re: The End of the World Thread
« Reply #44 on: May 07, 2019, 12:20:36 am »
It is called playing the odds given the information we have now. It is not about knowing because no one knows what will happen. For example, we could get some break though in energy production tech that completely changes the economics of emission free energy production. But can't assume it will happen and need to be prepared for the real possibility that it does not happen and we can't get rid of CO2 emissions without destroying the economy.
And the societies that will win in such a scenario will be the ones that did not engage in aggressive CO2 emissions control that only increases the cost of adaptation.
I can say the same about anyone who thinks CO2 emission reduction is a viable strategy.

Itís not a casino and no societies will win. Some may survive.

You have no strategy other than do nothing and hope for the best.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC