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."
What to do about global warming
- Thread starter Extrafire
- Start date
: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.
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:
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.
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.
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 second that notion. Money talks, intelligence walks. The percentage of intelligent people is far out weighed by the idiots invested in stupidity.
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.)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 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.
I pointed out to you why some of the wedges wouldn't work, and you even agreed on one of them.
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.
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.
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:
It's that too, but at the same time, not all that different from much government spending on "climate change".
He advocates for focusing on new technology to solve the AGW problem.
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.
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.
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.
:roll: There is only one reality. Deal with it.
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!
I did? Example please. I don't recall doing so without stating a reason.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
$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.
Uh, no. Label them alarmists because they're raising the alarm.
I don't recall you objecting to the word "denier". :roll:
You got a reading comprehension problem?
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.
A View From Science: Monthly Wind Report - June, 2010
This isn't about solving a problem, I just want to know if anyone can. Moving what goal posts?
But what I asked for was a solution that would achieve the 80%. And that's all you could come up with?