What to do about global warming

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,847
187
63
Nakusp, BC
The real solution is to minimize our demand on energy. How many TVs do you need? Or how many cars, SUVs or trucks? Our homes and vehicles are all part of the problem. Alternative energy sources may be fine in theory but the major problem is our rate of consumption. We need to seriously cut back and stop waiting for someone else to find a solution. As the Hopi say, "We are the people we have been waiting for."
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
:roll: I agree cutting back consumption is good, but you have to think about HOW its done. We have 2 tvs. We only use one at a time.

EF moans about alt energy subsidies. lol

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/execsum.pdf

So it's ok to provide massive subsidies for dirty industries but not clean industries. I see.

I found this: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa422.pdf

Notice at the end they mention they say they didn't include nuclear and hydro energies because greenies whine about safety & waste concerning nuclear, and damage to riparian ecologies.

And the oil industry isn't damaging to riparian ecosystems? Our hydro system detours a tiny fraction of the creek flow (up to ¼ cubic feet per second) for about ¼ km to provide as much as all of what electricity we use. The fish in the creek, otters, mink, weasels, ducks, etc. haven't seemed to notice because the diversion is from the existing main water line we take irrigation and domestic from.
Dams? Sure, they do a lot of damage in one watershed, but while they do that a different ecosystem is developed and the environment goes from supporting landlife to waterlife.
How much damage has hydro done in comparison? How much damage has nuclear done in comparison?
How much damage to ecologies has oil done over the last century so far? How much has been done just from the Exxon Valdez spill, or the Deepwater Horizon leak? It's incalculable, even for the Exxon Valdez, because the damage is still occurring two decades later.
I wish these morons would get it through their dense noggins, that damage consists of more than just monetary issues. Damage to the planet damages life on the planet and we are a part of that life.

So alt energy cannot replace dirty energy yet? Big deal. It can reduce a lot of the harm the dirty energy does and do a lot less damage while it does some good.
 
Last edited:

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
The real solution is to minimize our demand on energy. How many TVs do you need? Or how many cars, SUVs or trucks? Our homes and vehicles are all part of the problem. Alternative energy sources may be fine in theory but the major problem is our rate of consumption. We need to seriously cut back and stop waiting for someone else to find a solution. As the Hopi say, "We are the people we have been waiting for."
Great for you, but there is no way at this time that people would be willing to give up anything that will inconvenience themselves. Nobody wants to drive around in those so death traps called Smart Cars. Most people work so they can have things and things are what run a economy.
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
52
Oshawa
Great for you, but there is no way at this time that people would be willing to give up anything that will inconvenience themselves. Nobody wants to drive around in those so death traps called Smart Cars. Most people work so they can have things and things are what run a economy.

Yes, but things don't have to be environmentally destructive.

Things can be efficient, use less energy and be a device that produces energy with little or no pollution.

I know it's hard for cons to think about change and progress but give it a shot.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
Yes, but things don't have to be environmentally destructive.

Things can be efficient, use less energy and be a device that produces energy with little or no pollution.

I know it's hard for cons to think about change and progress but give it a shot.

So does war, we have to make a choice, "things" sound a lot better. An economy has to run on something, and that something must be popular to make money and drive it. We unfortunately we need disaster like the Gulf before making a major decision. I environmental decision at a time.
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
52
Oshawa
So does war, we have to make a choice, "things" sound a lot better. An economy has to run on something, and that something must be popular to make money and drive it. We unfortunately we need disaster like the Gulf before making a major decision. I environmental decision at a time.

Really?

You think something will change because of that?

You can go back as far as LBJ to the Obama today to see presidents dish out the same nonsense about an energy policy and being not reliant on oil.....you consume more oil now than you ever have.

Only two things will change that, you run out or you make it so exspensive you drive the market to an alternative. I suspect we will see many more disasters before either of those happen.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
Unless were dumber than bricks, this tragedy in the Gulf should bring about major change in how we do things. You still will be driving gasoline powered vehicles, but be assured that how they got that oil will be safer. It is a start.
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
52
Oshawa
Unless were dumber than bricks, this tragedy in the Gulf should bring about major change in how we do things. You still will be driving gasoline powered vehicles, but be assured that how they got that oil will be safer. It is a start.

I'll go with the dumber than bricks....history is on that side.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
149
63
Ahhh, so remember how Extra brought up the Spanish example of renewable energy?

Turns out those numbers aren't so solid.

Article here.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
67
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Ahhh, so remember how Extra brought up the Spanish example of renewable energy?

Turns out those numbers aren't so solid.

Article here.
Oooops. I can see some backpedalling coming up.


Undoubtedly, there are many exaggerated claims on both sides of the green economy debate. And we're looking further into the numbers ourselves. We can only hope that future studies receive similar attention as Calzada’s.
I'll second that hope.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,847
187
63
Nakusp, BC
I'll go with the dumber than bricks....history is on that side.
I'll second that notion. Money talks, intelligence walks. The percentage of intelligent people is far out weighed by the idiots invested in stupidity.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
And according to some the world is flat. In case you hadn't noticed what I did, I picked a common goal, not an extreme end of the tail. If you choose to define everything against extremes that's up to you. What to do about global warming is a political question, and I have yet to see, of all the legislation that has been passed, something which would appeal only to the extremists.
What to do about global warming is a political question? I thought it was a matter of saving the planet, at least that's how it's portrayed by the AGW alarmists. Are you suggesting they're all extremists? (Of course we all know that the whole AGW scam is perpetrated for financial and political reasons, but that's another topic.)

There is no transit available to where I work. My fiance and I have one car, she's going to vet school at UPEI starting this Aug.30th. It's cheapest, and I might add the lowest footprint, if I car pool to work, and she uses transit to get around Charlottetown.

Just because I can show you measurements which make the anthropogenic cause most likely, does not mean I can make my place of work closer, or light rapid transit to spring from the ground...
Ah, yes. Do as I say, not as I do. It's common for those with a dictatorial ideology to exempt themselves from the rules they demand for others. You can ride a bike can't you? Hypocrite.


No single wedge can...if you think that's the goal you should go re-read Pacala and Socolow.

Sigh...if you add up many wedges that slow the rise, you get to a point where emissions are stabilized. The carbon going into the cycle is taken out by the natural mechanisms which to date are overwhelmed. What happens when you push down on the high side of a teeter-totter?
We've already established thatsome of these wedges won't work so the overall effect of the combination of wedges will fail also. Furthermore, just because emissions are stabilized doesn't mean the temps won't keep rising. Considering that alarmists already say that current emissions are too much for the natural mechanisms to handle, how could stabilizing at much higher emissions be any better?

Let's move away from generalities and into specifics. If you're going to "shoot down" I want to see that you can actually hit a target. Which environmentalists? What laws and policies do we have in Canada that tackle climate change?
Since all environmental organizations support AGW alarmism and pressure governments to act, specifically, all of them would be included. It's a pretty broad target. And just a couple of examples besides the big one that I've already mentioned (Kyoto) the feds have required that very soon we must be burning ethanol in our cars, incandescant light bulbs will soon be illegal to sell, my municipal government has banned idling, none of which (we all know) will actually tackle climate change but that's what it was purportedly for.

If it's $800,000 salary per job I would agree. If it is infrastructure being built, then using jobs as a metric doesn't really make sense. The goal isn't employment, that's an ancillary benefit. Or is it a green employment bill? It's hard to know what you're spinning about sometimes, a link would help.
Did I not link? I can look it up if you like, but it's $800,000 of government expenditures subsidizing "green" industry for every green job created. Booming employment in green industries is touted as a benefit of combating AGW as a wonderful side effect. As I recall, subsidies went to solar panel manufacturers etc.

Which ones in particular are happy to cozy up to the government trough, as opposed to those who would rather see some regulatory certainty so that they can get on with capital expenditures?
Who were the biggest lobbiests in favor of phasing out incandescant bulbs? The manufactures, because the curlies are cheaper to make and they can charge more for them. The agribiz corps like Cargil because they get huge subsidies for ethanol production.

When you try to discard options by throwing out "environmentalists oppose" you are. Not all environmentalists oppose nuclear power. Try to name which ones do. Again, I'm asking you for specifics here.
When all environmental organizations support action on AGW and I say so that is not treating them as a monolithic group. It's just a matter of reporting a fact. I perceive you're trying to divert the discussion here. Nothing new for you.

What analysis? You simply threw out generalizations. Which is why I have to ask you for specifics.

As for reality, in the real world, analysis has a very different meaning. Economics, sciences, analysis requires breaking things down into smaller parts. Your generalizations are not smaller parts
I pointed out to you why some of the wedges wouldn't work, and you even agreed on one of them.

What gave you the impression that this discussion is limited to the developed world only?
Ooooo, nice twist! Please try to stay on topic.

The analogy you presented compared two very disparate entities, and I merely showed you a more reasonable comparison of similar entities.

Well, your little town must be an anomaly.

Gasoline is not an inelastic good. Several meta-analyses have shown that demand does drop when prices go up, over the short-run, and even moreso for the long-run.
Depends on how fast and how much the price increases. If the price is raised enough that people can't afford to drive, then consumption certainly falls. Inflation must also be taken into consideration though, as well as economic trends. When the economy is good and/or improving people tend to spend more, so they'd be quite willing to pay the extra in order to keep their independance, convenience and amenities.

Do I need to shout in caps, IF YOU CAN GET THAT PRICE.

Your question, quite a while back said "If you were paid a fair rate by the owners of the distribution grid, would you be any more likely to take advantage?" and my answer was "If that price could give me a return on investment within a reasonable timeframe and a profit, then yes I would."

Your question shouted in caps is redundant, it's already been asked and answered. :roll:

No, it's a result of typical pork spending on local projects that the American Congress loves so dearly.
It's that too, but at the same time, not all that different from much government spending on "climate change".

I've noticed that your interpretation of what Lomborg says and advocates for is far off the mark.

Oh, whatever! You're way off the rockers now. He advocates for geo-engineering, untested, and potentially dangerous geo-engineering.
He advocates for focusing on new technology to solve the AGW problem.

Seriously, why do deniers always move the goal posts?

Also, why do they hold up professional contrarians like Lomborg in such high regard.

Sad, but fun to watch.;-)
Who moved the goal posts? And who holds Lomborg in high regard? All I'm saying is he's realistic in regards to any solution to AGW, something which you have yet to demonstrate.

So quit listening to alarmists and pay attention to the rational and serious scientists.
You mean the skeptics? :smile: No of course you don't. I use the term "alarmist" to include all those who are raising the alarm about AGW, which includes the scammers, the environmentalists and the scientists.


You should really try to loosen up your rigidity. Everything is not either black or white.
He's so certain that AGW is an immediate threat that requires immediate action, yet he exempts himself from following his own dogma? That's rank hypocracy. But it's also a good example of human nature. None of us will willingly give up the conveniences and amenities and independance that our energy usage gives us, which is why our emissions keep rising. If everyone who claims to believe in AGW acted as if they believed in AGW, they would live accordingly.

More accurately, you should have said, "who isn't facing YOUR reality?".
:roll: There is only one reality. Deal with it.

:roll: Top green job pay scale in the USA:

6 Top-Paying Green Jobs - PayScale Resources

Does everyone in green jobs do these sort of jobs? Or is it more likely that some get minimum wage and others in a variety of wages in between minimum wage and top wages?
Either way, nice sidetrack from the point (that oil gets heavily subsidized, which you can't refute), but the sidetrack didn't work.
I didn't say anything about the pay scales for jobs, only what it cost in subsidies for each green job created. Huge difference. Didn't try to refute that oil gets subsidized or sidetrack. Did you notice who is the biggest? Iran!

But it is ok when you dismiss others' posts out-of-hand? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
I did? Example please. I don't recall doing so without stating a reason.

Please do. And perhaps an old report and a new report (or a few) so we can see if the local wildlife had adapted to the new machines.
Isn't that the point in the first place?
Fewer birds killed means they've adapted? Or that the population has been reduced in the area?

Haven't had time to look much yet.

Strange place you live in. We started driving less when the prices of gasoline went up in the early 90s, as did most people around here.
The price of electricity kept rising around here so people switched to natgas and made cuts to consumption in other ways, as well.
The price of lumber was rising around here so people cut back on building,resorted to getting lumber directly from small mills, and backyard mills.
I suppose there are some people around here that are content to just pay more and more, but they're a minority.
Your place seems a bit stranger. Lumber around here must be graded to be used in building anything more than a backyard shed. And small mills and backyard mills can't compete with the big ones on cost of production, although you might eliminate the middleman.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
149
63
Ooooo, nice twist! Please try to stay on topic.

The analogy you presented compared two very disparate entities, and I merely showed you a more reasonable comparison of similar entities.

Yes, I think you get it now. The analogy I gave was in response to your type of thinking. You gave one example, and that example has actually been shown to be wonky numbers. You didn't make any kind of comparison, you said "The Spanish example wasn't enough?"

Well, no it isn't. First, it appears to be flawed. Second, it's one country.

I guess that's all you need though ehh?

Your question, quite a while back said "If you were paid a fair rate by the owners of the distribution grid, would you be any more likely to take advantage?" and my answer was "If that price could give me a return on investment within a reasonable timeframe and a profit, then yes I would."

If you use the expanded quote, ie. don't take your quote out of context, what you said was this:

What would you consider a fair rate? I would think it would be exactly the same as it costs Hydro to produce from conventional sources. If that price could give me a return on investment within a reasonable timeframe and a profit, then yes I would. But from everything I've heard, such is not the case.

My emphasis. This is why I have to keep hammering the point home. It is not the case, because many will not be paid what even you said would be a fair rate.

He advocates for focusing on new technology to solve the AGW problem.

Repeat, repeat, repeat.....Lomborg's position is to do nothing until we have breakthrough technology. That is, he wants a silver bullet (which will never exist) but we have all the technology we need. Even if you don't accept that we can do it all now, we have more than enough technology to make meaningful cuts right now. And if you follow with Lomborg's position, when we start putting this technology out, and spend money on R&D, then we get more technology anyways.

Anyone who advocates using geo-engineering over rolling out the current technology we have, has not thought about the consequences, and if they actually know anything about such schemes, is not being genuine.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
There wouldn't be all this debating if there was a painless way to switch over to a cleaner form of energy. Some are saying just do it regardless of the cost, they are either well off or know the government will continue to support them. The middle class majority will pay. Breathing should cost everyone equally.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
There wouldn't be all this debating if there was a painless way to switch over to a cleaner form of energy. Some are saying just do it regardless of the cost, they are either well off or know the government will continue to support them. The middle class majority will pay. Breathing should cost everyone equally.
Yeah. Personally, we never expected anyone to leap into bankruptcy complying to green standards. We downsized our impact by a large percentage but we set our own rate and we are still downsizing our impact at our own rate. IE, it took us about a half year to develop our microhydro energy system. And another year to develop our solar energy system. And last year we spent about $325 on power from the grid. This year, none.
The world won't end tomorrow if we don't stop polluting, but it would be good if we stopped sometime soon.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
Yeah. Personally, we never expected anyone to leap into bankruptcy complying to green standards. We downsized our impact by a large percentage but we set our own rate and we are still downsizing our impact at our own rate. IE, it took us about a half year to develop our microhydro energy system. And another year to develop our solar energy system. And last year we spent about $325 on power from the grid. This year, none.
The world won't end tomorrow if we don't stop polluting, but it would be good if we stopped sometime soon.
No question we have to do something, but to work it must be affordable for all.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
No question we have to do something, but to work it must be affordable for all.
$7000 for us to put in microhydro and solar.
$5000 to convert a vehicle to a completely electric drive. Growing our own food is immensely cheaper than buying it. And so on.
Each remedy we do a little at a time.
The rich can afford it but don't seem to want to. They can't conceive of a life without high consumption and wastage rates. The poor don't have much choice.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
Yes, a favourite trick....label someone an alarmist because they've measured something.

Uh, no. Label them alarmists because they're raising the alarm.

I don't recall you objecting to the word "denier". :roll:

All very nice?

What does that mean?

You got a reading comprehension problem?

You could at least respond to the specifics of the comentary.

OK. One of the things they said was how reliable and steady wind power is, with less downtime than conventional sources of electricity. Here's an article that sees it differently.
As I've come to expect, sometimes the windfarms produce large amounts of electricity and sometimes they produce nearly nothing. The average capacity factor this last month was a dismal 18.8%. The most output for any one hour was 746 MW, and the least was 0 MW.

No, that wasn't a typo. In fact, there was a period of two hours where not one MW was recorded as being produced. Since the markets are required by law to include wind power where possible, its safe to say that this is because of the wind turbines themselves and not because regulatory limits. If I recall there was some nasty weather around that time but that wouldn't explain why none of the wind turbines were producing useful electricity.

In any case, I'm not sure there can be a much clearer illustration of why wind power doesn't work in Ontario. Sure, you can produce electricity maybe 18.8% of the time on average, but the other 81.2% of the time you require another source of electricity, like coal.

A View From Science: Monthly Wind Report - June, 2010

You would if this was about solving problems and not shooting solutions down or moving the goal posts.
This isn't about solving a problem, I just want to know if anyone can. Moving what goal posts?

I never said wind would achieve the 80%, no one thing will.
But what I asked for was a solution that would achieve the 80%. And that's all you could come up with?