The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[oil pan 4]

The grapes can't sour if they never grew in the first place.

Getting people to pay to fix man made global warming has always been dead on arrival, only problem is you are just now figuring it out. Even most of the believers don't want to pay for it.
Remember how I said the global warming movement will collapse on its self by 2022, this is the beginning of the end.
If they aren't willing to pay for it then they don't really believe in it.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

I stumbled onto this World energy report 2017 -2050

https://seekingalpha.com/article/408...-annual-report
.
.

.
.

Psychedelic!

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I never said hydropower was a bad thing.
You are just putting up strawmen where none exist.
But the time to build them was in the 1920s through WWII.
Hydro power is the only really large scale power generation that can cover the base load and is reliable.

*You made a blanket attack against government.
*I gave an example of a public good provided by government,which continues to this day to pay dividends to US citizens.
*The economist's Great Depression didn't initiate until 1929.
*Unlike 1893,the robber barons and one-percenters didn't step in to rescue the economy.
*We didn't have a socialist president in office until 1933.So the 1920s is too early for a start.
*Since we didn't bomb Tokyo and Berlin in 1936,things progressed on to WW-II.
*Nationalizations didn't occurr until after Pearl Harbor.
*Hydropower was expanded through the war,but the premise was for gaseous diffusion of fissile material for the Manhattan Project.
*Only after Nagasaki,did the 'Dollar-a-year-men' have access to some of the socialist power,as we immediately transitioned into Cold War nuclear proliferation,which ate enormous quantities of power.
*Hydro's great,but we're already kind of built out on that?

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The grapes can't sour if they never grew in the first place.

Getting people to pay to fix man made global warming has always been dead on arrival, only problem is you are just now figuring it out. Even most of the believers don't want to pay for it.
Remember how I said the global warming movement will collapse on its self by 2022, this is the beginning of the end.
If they aren't willing to pay for it then they don't really believe in it.

The point is the 'fix' for global warming is not a fix, but rather a reduction of the pollution we cause.
You are opposed to taxing fossil fuel. Then there's little incentive to reduce its use, and no way to pay for the measures needed to fight the effects like rising sea level.
Libertarians don't want governing, no? Let everyone decide for themselves...

Well, that's fine for things that affect only yourself.
The way I see it things should be governed at the level most relevant to the scope of the matter at hand.

If the doctor says you need to diet, and you don't and grow obese, that's your own choice. You may suffer from it, but probably nobody else does.
If you like to smoke it is another matter. You don't only put yourself at risk, but also everybody else in the same room. So if you are by yourself, go ahead, but otherwise you should not.
If you throw your trash on the street you influence the neighborhood, and chances are they'll get back at you. The guidelines what to do with your trash are a municipality matter.

if you burn fossil fuel the carbon spreads over the entire world. The scope is the entire world, and the problem needs to be tackled on a global scale.
We can't protect the climate if some nations keep spilling carbon like there's no tomorrow.

The fault in the questionnaire was the way the question was put.
It is ridiculous to ask people to pay money to fix global warming.
Instead they should have asked how much one should pay for wasting.
Would you let people pay $10 for every ton of CO2 they release, to help save the climate? I bet more than 32% would say "Yes" to that.

Littering is not taken lightly. Why is putting enormous amounts of carbon into the atmosphere allowed, then?

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I was saying I don't know the person in the countdown timer, but I also don't know who BPS is. You'd be surprised how much I don't know. :P

No more surprising to me than how much I don't know.

Anyways, it was AOC. While we are weighing the opinions of scientist and researchers, there exists a junior member of our Congress that is promoting a Green New Deal. Read it and weep.


In other news[ for nerds], https://science.slashdot.org/story/1...ingly-accurate

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

No more surprising to me than how much I don't know.

Anyways, it was AOC. While we are weighing the opinions of scientist and researchers, there exists a junior member of our Congress that is promoting a Green New Deal. Read it and weep.


In other news[ for nerds], https://science.slashdot.org/story/1...ingly-accurate

Neighbors gave me the January 14/21,2019 The Nation,with an article about the Green New Deal,by Mike Konczal,page 5.
*He mentions US Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's involvement with the Sunrise Movement.
*45% CO2 cut by 2030 (leaving 55% of emissions)
*100% renewable electric power(my guess,as he's not specific)
*10,000,000 new high-tech training/jobs in first 10-years
*investing in collapsing communities
*self-avowed lack of specifics
*goal: Congressional hearings
*create legislation for 2020
*define needs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was left with the impression that these people are operating in their right hemisphere,and have no grasp of reality,just operating on buzz concepts,emotionally driven,without a clue as to the implications of what they're advocating.Rumsfeldian 'unknown unknowns.'
They'd accomplish more simply through their own consumer spending patterns.Voting with their dollars.
The marketplace is a perfect democracy.They don't need Congress to know what the right thing to do is.As if Congress were aware of that anyway.
I don't see a way through what Eric Alterman describes in the same issue,as a 'false equivalence',between lies and reality,already log-jamming the policy process.

[RedDevil]

It is a goals versus systems problematic.
One can set a goal of 100% renewables, but with no system in place to get there it is a paper tiger.
Not that it is hard to think of some.
Systems could be stimulation of efficiency measures, subsidizing green power (by the kWh instead of build funds, no building obsolete installations but let the revenue make it worthwhile to build them), tax polluting energy forms gradually.

These remain nudges so the end effect is hard to predict with precision.
But you cannot nudge to 100%. Nor do we really need to yet.
It would already be an achievement if we can set a trend for emissions reduction.

Nudges can take different shapes too.
EV owners are likely to install PV panels on their home. Instead of subsidizing PV panels one could stimulate EVs for the same effect.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by aerohead

They'd accomplish more simply through their own consumer spending patterns.Voting with their dollars.
The marketplace is a perfect democracy.They don't need Congress to know what the right thing to do is.As if Congress were aware of that anyway.

Consistent with my belief that change should bubble up from the bottom rather than 'reign' down from the top.

[oil pan 4]

You act like I'm the only one.
68% of people are unwilling to pay $10 or more per month.
As queen Nancy said before passing Obamacare: "we have the votes and that's all that matteres".
It works both ways.
I am part of the vast, overwhelming majority.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Consistent with my belief that change should bubble up from the bottom rather than 'reign' down from the top.

I think we need to forget about the system of taxation and penalizing the consumer. The biggest way to make a difference would be to build nuclear power plants to replace coal power plants then eventually natural gas power plants too. Make electricity the cheaper better option, electricity can stay the same or get cheaper, oil is going to become more expensive.
Then in 50 years when these fission plants are worn out they may be obsolete. If not, build newer better ones.

Taxation and penalties really don't fix anything. People are still going to turn on an air conditioner or charge an electric vehicle and use mostly fossil fuel power, most people will continue to buy gasoline vehicles, big trains aren't going to switch to electric.
You accomplish nothing but a whole lot of pain for a little bit of conservation.