Author Topic: Climate Change  (Read 28614 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #375 on: April 07, 2019, 03:58:09 pm »
Yes, all (Jews, Cambodian Viets/Chinese/Cham/Lao/Thai, Tutsis, non-whites, etc.) should be eliminated and that will solve all our problems.
Which is my point. Just because a problem exists it does not automatically follow that we should pay whatever cost is needed to deal with it. Sometimes we have to choose to live with a problem and deal with the consequences as best as we can.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2019, 04:05:55 pm by TimG »
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #376 on: April 07, 2019, 04:05:23 pm »
Ok... The carbon tax is pay now vs. pay later.  The big sacrifices are in converting to new energy sources, reducing CO2.  What is the estimate again ?  I think it's less than 5% of GDP.
Two can play at that game. The medium estimate of the cost of climate change is it would shave 2% off world GDP by 2100. Seems to me that adapting is the lower cost option. Of course, you don't like to look at the full range estimates of the cost of adaptation - you just want to focus on the catastrophic estimates which is not a lot different from the rhetoric we get from the carbon tax opponents. FWIW, i am not against a carbon tax as long as we dispense with the silly notion that we will reduce emissions by X amount by Y date. As long as our climate policy it driven by nonsensical targets that cannot be met then the climate policy will be nonsense.

https://reason.com/archives/2014/08/29/climate-change-costs-by-2100
Quote
The adaptation report reckons that if the world takes no steps to deal with climate change, and temperatures increase by around 2 degrees Celsius, the annual economic losses will be "between 0.2 and 2.0% of income." It adds, "Losses are more likely than not to be greater, rather than smaller, than this range."

What about mitigation? Making the heroic set of assumptions that all countries of the world begin mitigation immediately, that everyone adopts the same carbon price, and that all key low- and no-carbon technologies are now available, keeping carbon dioxide concentrations below 450 parts per million by 2100 would reduce consumption growth "by 0.04 to 0.14 percentage points over the century relative to annualized consumption growth in the baseline that is between 1.6 percent and 3 percent per year." The median estimate for the reduced annual growth in consumption is 0.06 percent.

The last line of that neatly dispenses with the notion that it is some how more ethical to act now:
Quote
"Most philosophers and economists hold that rich generations have a lower ethical claim on resources than poorer generations," observes the Yale economist William Nordhaus. How much should people living on incomes averaging $10,000 a year now spend to make sure that people whose incomes will likely be many-fold higher don't see their wealth reduced by a couple of percentage points?
« Last Edit: April 07, 2019, 04:10:05 pm by TimG »

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #377 on: April 07, 2019, 04:23:13 pm »
Which is my point. Just because a problem exists it does not automatically follow that we should pay whatever cost is needed to deal with it. Sometimes we have to choose to live with a problem and deal with the consequences as best as we can.

Now there's the head in the sand approach if ever I've heard one. We caused the problem so we can fix it. We have lived here a long time before we discovered fossil fuels and so we can use our technology, and brains, to continue living here without it.
Disagree Disagree x 1 View List

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12477
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #378 on: April 07, 2019, 05:31:25 pm »
Two can play at that game. The medium estimate of the cost of climate change is it would shave 2% off world GDP by 2100. Seems to me that adapting is the lower cost option.

Actually, your post validates that it was YOU I got this from.  Whether or not we opt for accepting risk/adapting the costs are generally low when spread out per person.  Of course the cost is higher to you if, for example, you work in the energy industry.  That's a shame but if you *haven't* been impacted by macroeconomic forces in the last 20 years, where do you work ?  (I have)

Quote
Of course, you don't like to look at the full range estimates of the cost of adaptation - you just want to focus on the catastrophic estimates which is not a lot different from the rhetoric we get from the carbon tax opponents. FWIW, i am not against a carbon tax as long as we dispense with the silly notion that we will reduce emissions by X amount by Y date. As long as our climate policy it driven by nonsensical targets that cannot be met then the climate policy will be nonsense.

Now you're drifting back to climate change arguments in general.  I was just talking about your assertion that people who favour doing something are selfish, will not be impacted at all etc. 

Glad to hear you aren't against the carbon tax.

BTW - just so you know I am actually not a poser, I have fully accepted adaption as a 'plan b' argument and am not against it - presumably in the same way you're not against a carbon tax !  ;D

Offline Pinus or Vid or...?????

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 510
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #379 on: April 07, 2019, 09:57:11 pm »
For the two persons that down voted me for speaking the truth:

I would love to see them sell their car and home, bike everywhere, and live in a tent somewhere. If you really care about the Earth, you will do it.  Squid and Impact, I believe in you both.  People have survived camping out on rooftops in -30C weather for good causes.  I believe you can survive and even set an example to young people everywhere
« Last Edit: April 07, 2019, 10:01:50 pm by Vid »
If Omni, Impact, and the_squid ever had a love child, I would be him
Dumb Dumb x 2 View List

Offline Pinus or Vid or...?????

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 510
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #380 on: April 07, 2019, 10:00:28 pm »
Now there's the head in the sand approach if ever I've heard one. We caused the problem so we can fix it. We have lived here a long time before we discovered fossil fuels and so we can use our technology, and brains, to continue living here without it.

We cannot fix it, and continue to live the quality of life that we enjoy.

The only thing that will fix global warming, is the eradication of the human race.

Since that is improbable, we may as well adept to it the best we can, and try to curtail CO emissions as best we can, even though it will not make any difference, since there will always be countries out there that will ignore any kind of environmental regulations.
If Omni, Impact, and the_squid ever had a love child, I would be him
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #381 on: April 07, 2019, 10:19:51 pm »
We cannot fix it, and continue to live the quality of life that we enjoy.

The only thing that will fix global warming, is the eradication of the human race.

Since that is improbable, we may as well adept to it the best we can, and try to curtail CO emissions as best we can, even though it will not make any difference, since there will always be countries out there that will ignore any kind of environmental regulations.

I dunno, I could enjoy watching tv just as much if the power came from a nuclear plant or a wind turbine. Just keep your god damn coal plant in your back yard OK?

Offline Pinus or Vid or...?????

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 510
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #382 on: April 07, 2019, 11:28:50 pm »
We have known about climate change for close to 50 years. Yet, it is only accelerating.  The only way people will change, if there is some type of catastrophic event that occurs, and even then, judging by human history, the most likely scenario will be war.  It's a sad commentary on human nature, but regardless, it is true.
If Omni, Impact, and the_squid ever had a love child, I would be him

Offline cybercoma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2956
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #383 on: April 08, 2019, 08:56:02 am »
Overpopulation is a biggest concern.
Uh...no it isn't. It's pretty widely acknowledged that there's been a demographic shift were fertility has fallen below replacement in most areas of the world and it's assumed that this will also happen in the developing areas (it already has in many before they even reached the economic milestones that we used to assume they needed to meet).

Climate change is a far bigger concern with far more dire consequences.

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #384 on: April 08, 2019, 09:06:00 am »
Nothing can be done about climate change. 
... the only way to stop climate change is to eliminate 2/3 of the human population.
So ... humans do contribute to climate change, and something can be done about it.
We agree on that, though perhaps not on what's to be done about it.

Offline Pinus or Vid or...?????

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 510
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #385 on: April 08, 2019, 12:12:08 pm »
So ... humans do contribute to climate change, and something can be done about it.
We agree on that, though perhaps not on what's to be done about it.

Only one way to stop climate change:  kill of all homo-sapiens..
If Omni, Impact, and the_squid ever had a love child, I would be him

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #386 on: April 08, 2019, 12:35:14 pm »
Only one way to stop climate change:  kill of all homo-sapiens..

Again, we have lived on this planet a long time before we discoverd oil, and we can continue to live here without it.
Like Like x 1 View List

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #387 on: April 08, 2019, 03:27:20 pm »
I would love to see them sell their car and home, bike everywhere, and live in a tent somewhere

..­. What a false equivalence. There is plenty of middle ground, but you are unwilling to make any changes.
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #388 on: April 08, 2019, 04:17:47 pm »
Uh...no it isn't. It's pretty widely acknowledged that there's been a demographic shift were fertility has fallen below replacement in most areas of the world and it's assumed that this will also happen in the developing areas (it already has in many before they even reached the economic milestones that we used to assume they needed to meet).
Providing for each person living in Canada requires a minimum amount of energy. That amount is not going to go down because you really want it to and a lot of that energy comes from fossil fuels. Every person we add this country increases the energy demands and fossil consumption. Every country in the world wants a standard of living live we enjoy in Canada and will face the same problem where more people means more energy demands which cannot be fulfilled by building wind mills. It other words, you can't deal with the CO2 emission as long as endless population is considered acceptable.

Climate change is a far bigger concern with far more dire consequences.
Then why aren't climate alarmists demanding that we build more nuclear power? Perhaps because most climate alarmists are liars and don't really believe it is a crisis. It is only a problem that does not require them to make sacrifices by accepting lesser risks like nuclear power. But these snivelling  hypocrites are more than willing to ask government to force other people to make sacrifices/compromises when they refuse to make any for themselves. Why should anyone take such people seriously?
« Last Edit: April 08, 2019, 04:19:53 pm by TimG »
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #389 on: April 08, 2019, 04:21:29 pm »
Providing for each person living in Canada requires a minimum amount of energy. That amount is not going to go down because you really want it to and a lot of that energy comes from fossil fuels.

That amount can go down dramatically through the use of technology and lifestyle changes. There is no need to heat and air condition your 5600 sq ft mansion with little insulation and windows wide open, and drive to the corner store in your SUV.
Agree Agree x 1 Dumb Dumb x 1 View List