Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 49

Thread: How (((Liberals))) can exploit the shit out of global warming

  1. #1
    xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    5,913
    Mentioned
    77 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default How (((Liberals))) can exploit the shit out of global warming

    HUNDREDS of millions of unstoppable environmental-refugees are going to make the 2015 refugee crisis look cute by comparison. But most of the habitable zones will be in northern countries, and taking in that many refugees is a win for globalists: they will finally realize their aim of forcing through multicultural reforms with the intent of creating miscegenated societies. If you want a vision of the future, imagine a world of White-on-Muslim fucking - forever.







  2. #2
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    TIM
    eyy
    Posts
    2,671
    Mentioned
    196 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    welcome back xerx, xoxo

  3. #3
    xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    5,913
    Mentioned
    77 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    welcome back xerx, xoxo

  4. #4
    Muddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Ancapistan
    Posts
    2,377
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I feel like Global warming is going to be used as marketing tool to screw consumers. "Here pleb eat this bug burger even though what though you do as an average citizen matters shit compared to us mega-corps."

  5. #5
    In Transition Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,674
    Mentioned
    189 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Increasing 3rd world immigrants to the 1st world will increase pollution, worsen the environment thus making global warming worse if you think global warming is primarily human caused. So my point is if we actually cared about the environment, there should be less immigrants into the 1st world, not more. Since 3rd world citizens have less of an impact on pollution and global warming when living in their native nation. Telling 1st world citizens to have less kids to improve the environment and fight global warming, while bringing in more 3rd world immigrants that have more kids than the citizens is some next level cognitive dissonance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Muddy View Post
    I feel like Global warming is going to be used as marketing tool to screw consumers. "Here pleb eat this bug burger even though what though you do as an average citizen matters shit compared to us mega-corps."
    Exactly, you hit the nail on the head as it's already happening with carbon taxes. Governments impose carbon taxes on us like it is our moral duty to consume less, while corporations get tax breaks and loopholes when they are the major contributors of pollution. Anyways, I'm a big proponent of instead of using global warming as an excuse to increase taxes, how about we start slowly implementing more renewable energy: more incentive to purchase hybrid and electric cars, more nuclear power plants and other forms of renewable energy. We don't have to go 100% renewable energy any time in this century, but slowly adding it in is going to do a lot more than imposing carbon tax that we have no idea of what it's actually being used for. A good chunk of it could possibly be going straight to government coffers for non-environmental reasons.
    "Nothing happens until the pain of staying the same outweighs the pain of change."

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  6. #6
    xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    5,913
    Mentioned
    77 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    Increasing 3rd world immigrants to the 1st world will increase pollution, worsen the environment thus making global warming worse if you think global warming is primarily human caused. So my point is if we actually cared about the environment, there should be less immigrants into the 1st world, not more. Since 3rd world citizens have less of an impact on pollution and global warming when living in their native nation. Telling 1st world citizens to have less kids to improve the environment and fight global warming, while bringing in more 3rd world immigrants that have more kids than the citizens is some next level cognitive dissonance.
    Actually, many environmentalists have been making this point for decades. David Suzuki comes to mind.

    But refugees aren't immigrants, and refugees are what we're going to get when the Middle East becomes uninhabitable.


    how about we start slowly implementing more renewable energy: more incentive to purchase hybrid and electric cars, more nuclear power plants and other forms of renewable energy.
    This is already the platform of virtually every environmentalist party.

  7. #7
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    5,249
    Mentioned
    657 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Muddy View Post
    I feel like Global warming is going to be used as marketing tool to screw consumers. "Here pleb eat this bug burger even though what though you do as an average citizen matters shit compared to us mega-corps."
    "bug burgers".

    What a great idea! What a great marketing name! You could sell these at McD's to kids in cute little burger wrappers with pictures of ladybugs and butterflies, then there could be a "BBQ bug burger" variant that has pictures of gross bugs, for the kids who love to eat gross things. (Although this should be run past Marketing. It could create the wrong associations and backfire.) There could be tie-ins to remakes of "A Bug's Life" and you could partner with Disney to make a movie about how bugs love to be eaten; it's their contribution to saving the planet.

    We should contact "Impossible Foods" and see if they can work something up, with them licensing the name. God knows that the supply of bugs is almost unlimited. Using insects as a protein base could drop their costs through the floor.

    Once you have kids eating bug burgers regularly, their parents will follow, especially if they have enough sugar in them. Not all of the parents will buy in, of course, but you can't even get everyone to agree that the Earth is round.

  8. #8
    In Transition Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,674
    Mentioned
    189 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    Actually, many environmentalists have been making this point for decades. David Suzuki comes to mind.

    But refugees aren't immigrants, and refugees are what we're going to get when the Middle East becomes uninhabitable.
    Atm, most of the migrants have been economic migrants rather than refugees, so it would be wise for us to only let in refugees and vet economic migrants. As for future climate refugees, I agree with you that it could be a serious issue down the road. However, with China industrializing rapidly with little to no environmental controls and the flood of 3rd world immigration into the 1st world, I doubt we'll be able to do much to stop it. Carbon taxes is like trying to take out cups of water in a large pool, it will barely make a dent on our pollution.

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    This is already the platform of virtually every environmentalist party.
    I don't know, some far leftists that are not a part of a green party have been saying we should have 100% renewable energy by 2035 or 2050, which is pretty ridiculous. 100% renewable energy in theory sounds good, but in practice it will be disastrous economically for most nations. It's not something that should happen in this century, but eventually we'll need to get there even if it takes a while. Slowly transitioning to renewable energy from non-renewable energy with each new decade would be the best way of going about it IMO.
    "Nothing happens until the pain of staying the same outweighs the pain of change."

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  9. #9
    xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    5,913
    Mentioned
    77 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    Atm, most of the migrants have been economic migrants rather than refugees, so it would be wise for us to only let in refugees and vet economic migrants. As for future climate refugees, I agree with you that it could be a serious issue down the road. However, with China industrializing rapidly with little to no environmental controls and the flood of 3rd world immigration into the 1st world, I doubt we'll be able to do much to stop it. Carbon taxes are like trying to take out cups of water in a large pool, it will barely make a dent on our pollution.

    I don't know, some far leftists have been saying we should have 100% renewable energy by 2035 or 2050, which is pretty ridiculous. 100% renewable energy in theory sounds good, but in practice, it will be disastrous economically for most nations. It's not something that should happen in this century, but eventually we'll need to get there even if it takes a while. Slowly transitioning to renewable energy with each new decade would be the best way of going about it.
    Actually, Iceland and Norway have achieved nearly 100% renewable energy. Lots of European countries are following suit and succeeding.

  10. #10
    In Transition Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,674
    Mentioned
    189 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    Actually, Iceland and Norway have achieved nearly 100% renewable energy. Lots of European countries are following suit and succeeding.
    Norway and Iceland are unique because of their geographical location and conditions:

    Norway is a heavy producer of renewable energy because of hydropower. Over 99% of the electricity production in mainland Norway is from hydropower plants.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewa...ergy_in_Norway


    In 2016 geothermal energy provided about 65% of primary energy, the share of hydropower was 20%, and the share of fossil fuels (mainly oil products for the transport sector) was 15%.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewa...rgy_in_Iceland

    However, I'll admit that they can be a good source of inspiration for most nations to eventually reach it and strive to increase their renewable energy percentage to at least 50% in the near future if the will and innovation is there. I just think the logistics to make US or China have 100% renewable energy is a lot more difficult than Norway and Iceland because of their population size, country size and geography.
    "Nothing happens until the pain of staying the same outweighs the pain of change."

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  11. #11
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    5,249
    Mentioned
    657 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    I don't know, some far leftists that are not a part of a green party have been saying we should have 100% renewable energy by 2035 or 2050, which is pretty ridiculous. 100% renewable energy in theory sounds good, but in practice it will be disastrous economically for most nations. It's not something that should happen in this century, but eventually we'll need to get there even if it takes a while. Slowly transitioning to renewable energy from non-renewable energy with each new decade would be the best way of going about it IMO.
    And now for some good news:

    https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...a-dying-breed/

  12. #12
    FreelancePoliceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Maizistan
    TIM
    LII(?)
    Posts
    226
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    I don't know, some far leftists that are not a part of a green party have been saying we should have 100% renewable energy by 2035 or 2050, which is pretty ridiculous. 100% renewable energy in theory sounds good, but in practice it will be disastrous economically for most nations. It's not something that should happen in this century, but eventually we'll need to get there even if it takes a while. Slowly transitioning to renewable energy from non-renewable energy with each new decade would be the best way of going about it IMO.
    We needed to have 100% renewable energy in 2000, let alone now. Politicians always pushed off the problem to the future — and continue now. The efforts currently being made are far too late, and too little. If you care to read serious studies, climate change predictions are far worse than the general impression that’s been sold to the media; climate scientists intentionally have publicized “best-case” scenarios only, in an effort to prevent a general feeling of despair and unwillingness to attempt reform. Instead countries don’t even move to prevent these best-case scenarios. They’re of course physically possible, but “economically unfeasible”; i.e. we would rather make a buck now and continually grow “the economy” (what an abstract and neutral-sounding term!) than prevent billions of human deaths and mass extinction of most animal species in fifty years.


    But it’s not like a lever will be flipped in fifty years. Worldwide ecological collapse is already happening, if you pay attention. World wildlife populations have decreased by 60% since 1970. I can’t stress this enough. Insects are among those affected — when was the last time you saw a firefly? Monarch butterflies are endangered now IIRC, or very close to the status. Ocean fish populations have declined at a horrifying rate, and it’s believed that the ocean will become almost free of fish entirely within a century — which will be devastating to millions if not billions of people who depend on fish for their livelihood or survival, to say nothing of the entire ocean ecosystem. Biologists already teach that we’re living in one of the great mass extinctions that have occurred through the Earth’s history — due of course to human activity.

    We’ve been living in a fever dream of never-ending growth and development. Soon the fumes we’ve been running on since WWII will choke us.
    Cattle die; kinsmen die;
    Thyself too soon will die;
    One thing, I ween, shall never die:
    Fair fame for one who has earned.

    Cattle die; kinsmen die;
    Thyself too soon must die;
    One thing, I ween, shall never die:
    The doom over each one’s head.


  13. #13
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    TIM
    eyy
    Posts
    2,671
    Mentioned
    196 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    Increasing 3rd world immigrants to the 1st world will increase pollution, worsen the environment thus making global warming worse if you think global warming is primarily human caused. So my point is if we actually cared about the environment, there should be less immigrants into the 1st world, not more. Since 3rd world citizens have less of an impact on pollution and global warming when living in their native nation.

    world air pollution map
    7M54BLw4xjnDb9tqOwvUbVgeO0FAdExKyJbBa8m-cQE.png



    Parts of Africa, E
    astern Europe, India, China and the Middle East are the biggest regional danger spots. The WHO (World Health Organization) says almost all air pollution-related deaths (94%) occur in low- and middle-income countries.

    Large areas of developed countries including the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Scandinavian nations meet safety guidelines. But, as the map shows, much of Europe is breathing dirty air.

    Even within countries, levels of air pollution can vary. In Italy, for example, air quality in the industrial north is particularly bad.

  14. #14
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    TIM
    eyy
    Posts
    2,671
    Mentioned
    196 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ^ it's a bit of a biased map, basically pollution is proportional to the amount of people living in the same space.

  15. #15
    xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    5,913
    Mentioned
    77 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    Norway and Iceland are unique because of their geographical location and conditions:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewa...ergy_in_Norway

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewa...rgy_in_Iceland

    However, I'll admit that they can be a good source of inspiration for most nations to eventually reach it and strive to increase their renewable energy percentage to at least 50% in the near future if the will and innovation is there. I just think the logistics to make US or China have 100% renewable energy is a lot more difficult than Norway and Iceland because of their population size, country size and geography.

    Actually, China is the world's leader in the development of cleaner sources of energy - its CO2 emissions have stayed constant over the past five years in spite of its large economic growth, and China is in the process of meeting its 2020 Copenhagen targets. This is being done through tighter environmental regulations and massive investments in green energy.

    Source: https://chinapower.csis.org/china-gr...gas-emissions/

    There is absolutely nothing that China can do that the USA couldn't have done decades ago.

  16. #16
    In Transition Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,674
    Mentioned
    189 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman View Post
    We needed to have 100% renewable energy in 2000, let alone now. Politicians always pushed off the problem to the future — and continue now. The efforts currently being made are far too late, and too little. If you care to read serious studies, climate change predictions are far worse than the general impression that’s been sold to the media; climate scientists intentionally have publicized “best-case” scenarios only, in an effort to prevent a general feeling of despair and unwillingness to attempt reform. Instead countries don’t even move to prevent these best-case scenarios. They’re of course physically possible, but “economically unfeasible”; i.e. we would rather make a buck now and continually grow “the economy” (what an abstract and neutral-sounding term!) than prevent billions of human deaths and mass extinction of most animal species in fifty years.


    But it’s not like a lever will be flipped in fifty years. Worldwide ecological collapse is already happening, if you pay attention. World wildlife populations have decreased by 60% since 1970. I can’t stress this enough. Insects are among those affected — when was the last time you saw a firefly? Monarch butterflies are endangered now IIRC, or very close to the status. Ocean fish populations have declined at a horrifying rate, and it’s believed that the ocean will become almost free of fish entirely within a century — which will be devastating to millions if not billions of people who depend on fish for their livelihood or survival, to say nothing of the entire ocean ecosystem. Biologists already teach that we’re living in one of the great mass extinctions that have occurred through the Earth’s history — due of course to human activity.

    We’ve been living in a fever dream of never-ending growth and development. Soon the fumes we’ve been running on since WWII will choke us.
    This sounds mostly like scaremongering to be honest. What we know for sure is this and this is what 97% of scientists have a consensus on:

    1. Temperatures are increasing worldwide

    2. Humans are a factor in global warming

    That's it! Everything else is merely speculation. We don't know how much of global warming is human caused and how much of it is natural. We don't know how bad the effects of global warming will be on the Earth either. You're speaking mostly for worst case scenarios that some scientists speak of, but there's no definite proof on.

    Quote Originally Posted by ooo View Post
    ^ it's a bit of a biased map, basically pollution is proportional to the amount of people living in the same space.
    Well, there you go, you just proved my point. Naturally air pollution will be worse at more populous areas. By increasing immigration into 1st world countries, pollution will increase in the 1st world. Pollution also won't decrease at 3rd world countries with emigration, if anything it will continue to get worse as birth rates stay high and increase population in 3rd world countries. Increasing immigrants into the 1st world does not solve any problems for 3rd world countries and worsens 1st world pollution, there's not much else to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    Actually, China is the world's leader in the development of cleaner sources of energy - its CO2 emissions have stayed constant over the past five years in spite of its large economic growth, and China is in the process of meeting its 2020 Copenhagen targets. This is being done through tighter environmental regulations and massive investments in green energy.

    Source: https://chinapower.csis.org/china-gr...gas-emissions/

    There is absolutely nothing that China can do that the USA couldn't have done decades ago.
    The site itself proves that China is one of the worst polluters today:

    Greenhouse gas emissions from human activities have been the primary driver of climate change. Much of these emissions have come from China, which has had the world’s largest carbon footprint since 2004 and was responsible for 28.3 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions in 2017.

    As the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, China has faced widespread criticism from the international community. Beijing also faces domestic pressure to address environmental concerns while maintaining economic growth.
    So China has pledged that it will improve it's CO2 emissions and I have no doubt that they will continue to lower CO2 emissions alongside other nations. However, expecting China to use 100% renewable energy any time soon is certainly a stretch. Reasonable goals like 50% renewable energy more or less is better for nations like China or the US than shooting for nearly 100% renewable energy that only Norway and Iceland have done so far.
    "Nothing happens until the pain of staying the same outweighs the pain of change."

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  17. #17
    FreelancePoliceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Maizistan
    TIM
    LII(?)
    Posts
    226
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    This sounds mostly like scaremongering to be honest. What we know for sure is this and this is what 97% of scientists have a consensus on:

    1. Temperatures are increasing worldwide

    2. Humans are a factor in global warming

    That's it! Everything else is merely speculation. We don't know how much of global warming is human caused and how much of it is natural. We don't know how bad the effects of global warming will be on the Earth either. You're speaking mostly for worst case scenarios that some scientists speak of, but there's no definite proof on.
    Humans are the main factor in climate change. Point to any other reasonable factor. You spoke rightly when you said "we" don't know to what degree climate change is anthropogenic; you won't learn anything you don't care to. The scientific community, on the other hand, does know -- and has been telling the world for decades, only to be discredited by useful idiots who prattle on about how "we" can't know this and that, and so any action taken would be too extreme -- think of the economic costs of saving the planet! And regardless of how my post "seems" to you, as I've said, climate change is already happening. There is definite proof of this. Human society will be violently shaken in the coming decades -- but the nature of the beast is such that the worst of its effects are sudden. ""We"" needed immediate and drastic action long, long ago, and ""we"" still need it -- but now only to mitigate the worst consequences of ""our"" inaction.
    Cattle die; kinsmen die;
    Thyself too soon will die;
    One thing, I ween, shall never die:
    Fair fame for one who has earned.

    Cattle die; kinsmen die;
    Thyself too soon must die;
    One thing, I ween, shall never die:
    The doom over each one’s head.


  18. #18
    In Transition Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,674
    Mentioned
    189 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreelancePoliceman View Post
    Humans are the main factor in climate change. Point to any other reasonable factor. You spoke rightly when you said "we" don't know to what degree climate change is anthropogenic; you won't learn anything you don't care to. The scientific community, on the other hand, does know -- and has been telling the world for decades, only to be discredited by useful idiots who prattle on about how "we" can't know this and that, and so any action taken would be too extreme -- think of the economic costs of saving the planet! And regardless of how my post "seems" to you, as I've said, climate change is already happening. There is definite proof of this. Human society will be violently shaken in the coming decades -- but the nature of the beast is such that the worst of its effects are sudden. ""We"" needed immediate and drastic action long, long ago, and ""we"" still need it -- but now only to mitigate the worst consequences of ""our"" inaction.
    Most scientists are uncertain on how much climate change is anthropogenic:

    Surely the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded.!
    So apparently only 34% of scientists even mentioned anthropogenic on the papers derived from the 97% meaning the 97% number is bunk since it is only looking at scientists that even mentioned anthropohenic climate change. The other 66% neglected to make any mention of it only agreed that global warming was occurring.

    A 2012 poll of American Meteorological Society members also reported a diversity of opinion. Of the 1,862 members who responded (a quarter of the organization), 59 percent stated that human activity was the primary cause of global warming, and 11 percent attributed the phenomenon to human activity and natural causes in about equal measure, while just under a quarter (23 percent) said enough is not yet known to make any determination. Seventy-six percent said that warming over the next century would be “very” or “somewhat” harmful, but of those, only 22 percent thought that “all” or a “large” amount of the harm could be prevented “through mitigation and adaptation measures.”
    59% believed it was attributed to human activity, 11% attributed it to human activity and natural causes in about equal measure and 23% said they were unsure. 76% believed global warming would be harmful down the road, but only 22% of them believed we could do anything about it to stop it.

    And according to a study of 1,868 scientists working in climate-related fields, conducted just this year by the PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency, three in ten respondents said that less than half of global warming since 1951 could be attributed to human activity, or that they did not know.
    In this survey 30% of scientists said that human activity contributed to less than half of global warming or they were unsure.

    Anyways, my point with all this is that a good chunk of scientists just like us are unsure about how much of global warming is anthropogenic and how much of it is natural. They are also unsure about if we can do anything to stop it from getting worse. The true meaning of science is being skeptical to the consensus and open minded to alternatives. Not by dogmatically claiming that global warming is ~95%+ human caused, which is merely an appeal to authority, which you have just done with this post. Maybe global warming is ~95% human caused, maybe it is only ~5% human caused or more realistically it could be anywhere in between.

    The point is scientists are just like us, they don't know everything about what is causing global warming. Just look at how scientists constantly change opinion on simple matters like on whether eggs are good for us or not and global warming is far more difficult to decipher. I just want to make clear again: I believe global warming is real and I believe human activity is a factor, but I am not certain on how much of that is human activity and how much of it is natural just like a good chunk of scientists are. Misinformation like the 97% statistic that global warming is human activity that was dependent on selection bias by ignoring 66% of scientists is why I will refrain from drawing any conclusions.
    "Nothing happens until the pain of staying the same outweighs the pain of change."

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  19. #19

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,222
    Mentioned
    225 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    That's it! Everything else is merely speculation. We don't know how much of global warming is human caused and how much of it is natural. We don't know how bad the effects of global warming will be on the Earth either. You're speaking mostly for worst case scenarios that some scientists speak of, but there's no definite proof on.
    There's literally nothing else that could cause global warming, since the heat that gets to the Earth must be dissipated to the outside space, if it were not for the heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere.

    So the only possible thing that could be warming the Earth is more heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. And we are adding more heat-trapping gases called CO2 at an unprecedented level. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out.

    If the Earth had been "naturally" warmer before, then that's only because the Earth had "naturally" released more CO2 into the atmosphere.

    I think that technologically and economically, the world is moving towards renewables. It just makes sense because renewables are getting cheaper than even fossil fuels.

    If we could find a way to not warm the Earth while maintaining the same levels of CO2 emissions... then I'd like to know how.

  20. #20
    xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    5,913
    Mentioned
    77 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    The site itself proves that China is one of the worst polluters today:

    So China has pledged that it will improve it's CO2 emissions and I have no doubt that they will continue to lower CO2 emissions alongside other nations. However, expecting China to use 100% renewable energy any time soon is certainly a stretch. Reasonable goals like 50% renewable energy more or less is better for nations like China or the US than shooting for nearly 100% renewable energy that only Norway and Iceland have done so far.
    Raver, while all of this is true, I don't believe that "100% or bust" is a good counterargument. The point is to lower our dependence on fossil fuels by as much as possible in order to mitigate the worst effects of global warming -- stopping it is unlikely at this point unless the United States had taken China's path, starting in the 1980's.

    The current war in Syria and the refugee crisis were at least partially caused by droughts brought on by global warming. I had my hopes that these events would give Conservatives a vision of the kinds of crises we're faced with -- if a few million refugees can destabilize our politics, imagine what fifty million could do. Even in the unlikely case that Europe adopted the most unapologetically xenophobic attitude towards these people, would they even have the manpower to stop an influx of that size? I doubt it.

    I also had my hopes that small-government types would opt for solar power as a matter of principle, as it's the most self-sufficient energy source ever devised: central governments can always shut off your oil tap; no one has ever managed to block the sun.

  21. #21
    Grendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    /t16t/
    Posts
    1,174
    Mentioned
    64 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    There's literally nothing else that could cause global warming, since the heat that gets to the Earth must be dissipated to the outside space, if it were not for the heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere.

    So the only possible thing that could be warming the Earth is more heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. And we are adding more heat-trapping gases called CO2 at an unprecedented level. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out.

    If the Earth had been "naturally" warmer before, then that's only because the Earth had "naturally" released more CO2 into the atmosphere.

    I think that technologically and economically, the world is moving towards renewables. It just makes sense because renewables are getting cheaper than even fossil fuels.

    If we could find a way to not warm the Earth while maintaining the same levels of CO2 emissions... then I'd like to know how.

    He's not speculating that the mechanism is anything other than the greenhouse effect. He's saying that other natural processes (e.g. volcanic eruptions) can also release massive volumes of greenhouse gases at once. Look at the Permian-Triassic extinction. Largest mass extinction event ever known, caused by greenhouse gas buildup, and no intelligent life as we know it existed at the time.

    I do tend to lean on the side that it is anthropogenic, btw, but he has a point.
    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Shut the fuck up, dumbass.


  22. #22

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,222
    Mentioned
    225 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel View Post
    He's not speculating that the mechanism is anything other than the greenhouse effect. He's saying that other natural processes (e.g. volcanic eruptions) can also release massive volumes of greenhouse gases at once. Look at the Permian-Triassic extinction. Largest mass extinction event ever known, caused by greenhouse gas buildup, and no intelligent life as we know it existed at the time.

    I do tend to lean on the side that it is anthropogenic, btw, but he has a point.
    He's saying that he doesn't know how much is caused by nature and how much is man-made.

    I mean the fact that the Earth had warmed before due to CO2 is entirely the point. That is true, and we're adding more CO2 into the atmosphere without being part of the carbon cycle, meaning the it doesn't get reabsorbed by things like the ocean and the trees. So it creates a vicious cycle of adding more water vapor into the atmosphere from the extra heat, which heats up the planet even more, since water vapor traps heat.

    So the only conclusion that you can make from "it's nature!" argument is "Oh well, since it's naturally occurring, we can't do anything about it, so we might as well wait until we die".

    But that's like knowing that an asteroid is going to hit the Earth, yet we're not going to be doing anything about it and wait until we die.

    Even if the Earth is naturally warming, you should try to find a way to cool the planet somehow. And that's exactly what they're not doing, because they'd rather maintain the status quo, which is what this whole thing is about: fear of sudden change.

  23. #23
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    TIM
    eyy
    Posts
    2,671
    Mentioned
    196 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    it's more about: interest in keeping things as they are for economical and political purposes

  24. #24
    user title The Perpetual Now's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    458
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    everyone, if you have refridgerators, leave them open. If you have air conditioners, leave your windows open.

    I think we can fight this.

  25. #25
    user title The Perpetual Now's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    458
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    other idea is we fuck with the planet's orbit and somehow try to tow Earth further from the sun.

  26. #26
    WinnieW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    1,247
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Perpetual Now View Post
    everyone, if you have refridgerators, leave them open. If you have air conditioners, leave your windows open.
    Neat idea, but that doesn't work that way. Laws of thermodynamics... you know?
    Laws that are not changeable by humans.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Perpetual Now View Post
    other idea is we fuck with the planet's orbit and somehow try to tow Earth further from the sun.
    There is also the idea of bringing some foil-like material in the orbit of earth that absorbs or reflects sun light.

  27. #27
    Uncle Ave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,466
    Mentioned
    112 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    Exactly, you hit the nail on the head as it's already happening with carbon taxes. Governments impose carbon taxes on us like it is our moral duty to consume less, while corporations get tax breaks and loopholes when they are the major contributors of pollution. Anyways, I'm a big proponent of instead of using global warming as an excuse to increase taxes, how about we start slowly implementing more renewable energy: more incentive to purchase hybrid and electric cars, more nuclear power plants and other forms of renewable energy. We don't have to go 100% renewable energy any time in this century, but slowly adding it in is going to do a lot more than imposing carbon tax that we have no idea of what it's actually being used for. A good chunk of it could possibly be going straight to government coffers for non-environmental reasons.
    While I myself reject the idea of carbon taxes, I can't think of another way to make renewables less expensive than fossil fuels. Of course, it's retarded, because the market doesn't work that way: if you pay less for fossil fuels without biasing the market through taxes, people won't end up paying less for renewables if you do tax fossil fuels. Basically I am saying renewables will become less expensive by comparison to fossil fuels, but not less expensive.

    What would be the incentive to purchase more hybrid and electric cars?

    How do you lower the costs of renewables? The only thing that lowers costs is competition. And the only way to have competition is to get the government out of the economy.

    Let's have some trust in human innovation.


  28. #28
    Uncle Ave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,466
    Mentioned
    112 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Human activity is also the solution to environmental issues, not just the problem.

    I mean, yeah, we could imagine ceasing all human activity and go back to some prehistorical setting where we are "one with nature" but this won't happen because humanity, or at least, many human individuals, are like a ball set in motion. An object in motion tends to stay in motion. Humans are the only species that need to alter their environement in order to thrive - hence why the "one with nature" philosophy hates human activity, because it disrups what they perceive as a cosmic harmony.

    Yes, we have created a mess with some of our activities, namely the loss of biodiversity, and biodiversity is necessary to humans, too, but I think the solution is human innovation. If you're concerned about the survival of monarch butterflies (mentioned above), the solution is might be to build your own butterfly garden. Or if you're concerned with water pollution, market a new water purifier for rivers and streams. This requires innovation. Since we cannot stop human activity (and I am not saying we should ) the best thing to use the human mind to find ways to help the environment thrive with us. Find new solutions to existing problems such as loss of biodiversity. This goes way beyond renewables. Capitalism is essential to this since it is the system that allows the best in innovation. But forget capitalism for a second, forget free markets, remember the human mind's capacity to innovate, create, build wonderful things (but also horrible). The only reason I defend capitalism is because I think it is the system that best allows innovation and creativity, including in environmental issues.


  29. #29

  30. #30
    user title The Perpetual Now's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    458
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @
    Uncle Ave

    I'm all for getting the government out of the market. Did you know there's various localities in the USA where people are prohibited from upgrading their homes with solar panels?

  31. #31
    Grendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    /t16t/
    Posts
    1,174
    Mentioned
    64 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    He's saying that he doesn't know how much is caused by nature and how much is man-made.

    I mean the fact that the Earth had warmed before due to CO2 is entirely the point. That is true, and we're adding more CO2 into the atmosphere without being part of the carbon cycle, meaning the it doesn't get reabsorbed by things like the ocean and the trees. So it creates a vicious cycle of adding more water vapor into the atmosphere from the extra heat, which heats up the planet even more, since water vapor traps heat.

    So the only conclusion that you can make from "it's nature!" argument is "Oh well, since it's naturally occurring, we can't do anything about it, so we might as well wait until we die".

    But that's like knowing that an asteroid is going to hit the Earth, yet we're not going to be doing anything about it and wait until we die.

    Even if the Earth is naturally warming, you should try to find a way to cool the planet somehow. And that's exactly what they're not doing, because they'd rather maintain the status quo, which is what this whole thing is about: fear of sudden change.
    Well that's just moving the goalposts. The real concern behind climate change denial is whether or not the way we're living is sustainable. If it isn't, that implies a need to change it, and if that change is getting several nations and multinational corps to agree upon wide-reaching global standards, that's justification enough to do so.

    But we've had to live under the shadow of natural disasters we had no power to prevent ever since we evolved. If you're in favor of immediately forcing huge global standards on all the world's disparate countries to stop one climate problem they're not responsible for causing, you're also setting a precedent for them to stop things like earthquakes, volcanoes, solar storms, all broad and far-reaching stuff that the average citizen isn't typically concerned with preventing, not even those who actually live day-to-day in the blast radius of a dormant volcano. We have whole island cultures of people whose worldview is predicated on living in the shadow of oozing hills of fire.


    You can't just shift from preventing a manmade problem to a nature-made one, without also losing the cost-benefit equation of working under such a global collaboration. If you live in the United States, you already understand how larger and more federal governing authorities typically implement far more draconic and one-size-fits-all policies on whole communities of people whose voting power to oppose them probably didn't even matter.
    If it's just a global treaty pertaining to carbon, methane, and water vapor emissions, an energy policy, then I might not be totally skeeved in agreeing to it, but what you must also remember when agreeing to any kind of global policy is that they're meant to apply equally over people living in the US, in Africa, in South America, and in China. I don't trust throwing global treaties against the wall ad-hoc because I'd never consent to sharing the same internet or social media policies China has, even though I might consent to living under the same clean energy standards. But setting up the infrastructure for global standards without caution can also sustain the means by which increasing levels of global regulation are implemented.
    So that's why I'm hesitant to say a global climate change policy would be worth the cooperation if the cause were found not to be anthropogenic. Granted, I'm still of the opinion that it is, and that we could be conforming to better standards, but if things weren't the way they are, the point still stands.
    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Shut the fuck up, dumbass.


  32. #32
    Muddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Ancapistan
    Posts
    2,377
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ave View Post

    Capitalism is essential to this since it is the system that allows the best in innovation.
    Most of the big technological leaps of the past century came from publically funded research, not private enterprise. The internet, space satellites, countless vaccines, and GPS are just a few examples out of countless more.

  33. #33
    In Transition Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,674
    Mentioned
    189 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    There's literally nothing else that could cause global warming, since the heat that gets to the Earth must be dissipated to the outside space, if it were not for the heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere.

    So the only possible thing that could be warming the Earth is more heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. And we are adding more heat-trapping gases called CO2 at an unprecedented level. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out.

    If the Earth had been "naturally" warmer before, then that's only because the Earth had "naturally" released more CO2 into the atmosphere.

    I think that technologically and economically, the world is moving towards renewables. It just makes sense because renewables are getting cheaper than even fossil fuels.

    If we could find a way to not warm the Earth while maintaining the same levels of CO2 emissions... then I'd like to know how.
    Earth temperatures have increased or decreased naturally because of natural CO2 emissions and because of non-CO2 reasons too:



    So basically, CO2 is a factor in global temperataure increase, but it's not the only factor. There is some correlation with temperature increases in the past with CO2, but it's not completely linked.

    Quote Originally Posted by xerxe View Post
    Raver, while all of this is true, I don't believe that "100% or bust" is a good counterargument. The point is to lower our dependence on fossil fuels by as much as possible in order to mitigate the worst effects of global warming -- stopping it is unlikely at this point unless the United States had taken China's path, starting in the 1980's.

    The current war in Syria and the refugee crisis were at least partially caused by droughts brought on by global warming. I had my hopes that these events would give Conservatives a vision of the kinds of crises we're faced with -- if a few million refugees can destabilize our politics, imagine what fifty million could do. Even in the unlikely case that Europe adopted the most unapologetically xenophobic attitude towards these people, would they even have the manpower to stop an influx of that size? I doubt it.

    I also had my hopes that small-government types would opt for solar power as a matter of principle, as it's the most self-sufficient energy source ever devised: central governments can always shut off your oil tap; no one has ever managed to block the sun.
    I agree that we need to lower our dependence on fossil fuels regardless of the circumstances. I just think that we need to stay away from half-hearted solutions like carbon taxes that are questionable and appear to be an excuse to tax the population further. Instead of rushing for some impractical goal like 100% renewable energy by 2035, we should slowly phase it out until we eventually reach that goal or close, if it takes a 100 years instead of 10 years then so be it. Slow practical progress is the key to a healthy environment. Not carbon taxes and not setting unrealistic goals that few nations will be capable of doing minus a few exceptions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    He's saying that he doesn't know how much is caused by nature and how much is man-made.

    I mean the fact that the Earth had warmed before due to CO2 is entirely the point. That is true, and we're adding more CO2 into the atmosphere without being part of the carbon cycle, meaning the it doesn't get reabsorbed by things like the ocean and the trees. So it creates a vicious cycle of adding more water vapor into the atmosphere from the extra heat, which heats up the planet even more, since water vapor traps heat.

    So the only conclusion that you can make from "it's nature!" argument is "Oh well, since it's naturally occurring, we can't do anything about it, so we might as well wait until we die".

    But that's like knowing that an asteroid is going to hit the Earth, yet we're not going to be doing anything about it and wait until we die.

    Even if the Earth is naturally warming, you should try to find a way to cool the planet somehow. And that's exactly what they're not doing, because they'd rather maintain the status quo, which is what this whole thing is about: fear of sudden change.
    If you want to solve global warming then the goal is to truly find out what is the main cause, not just blindly assuming it is only one factor. The CO2 aspect is obviously something we can control and we should work on it, if it is ~95% human activity then it's clear that is where we should put our effort in. If it is ~5% human activity then it is wasted effort and we should put our energy into whatever the main issue is whether it be the sun or anything else really. However, an often overlooked fact is that stopping all of our CO2 emissions today won't guarantee temperatures will drop at all and will actually continue to increase even if it is ~95% human activity:

    http://theconversation.com/if-we-sto...e-change-78882

    What would happen to the climate if we were to stop emitting carbon dioxide today, right now? Would we return to the climate of our elders?

    The simple answer is no. Once we release the carbon dioxide stored in the fossil fuels we burn, it accumulates in and moves among the atmosphere, the oceans, the land and the plants and animals of the biosphere. The released carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years. Only after many millennia will it return to rocks, for example, through the formation of calcium carbonate – limestone – as marine organisms’ shells settle to the bottom of the ocean. But on time spans relevant to humans, once released the carbon dioxide is in our environment essentially forever. It does not go away, unless we, ourselves, remove it.

    In order to stop the accumulation of heat, we would have to eliminate not just carbon dioxide emissions, but all greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide. We’d also need to reverse deforestation and other land uses that affect the Earth’s energy balance (the difference between incoming energy from the sun and what’s returned to space). We would have to radically change our agriculture. If we did this, it would eliminate additional planetary warming, and limit the rise of air temperature. Such a cessation of warming is not possible.

    So if we stop emitting carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels today, it’s not the end of the story for global warming. There’s a delay in air-temperature increase as the atmosphere catches up with all the heat that the Earth has accumulated. After maybe 40 more years, scientists hypothesize the climate will stabilize at a temperature higher than what was normal for previous generations.
    Why does no one talking about reversing deforestation, other land uses or changing the way we use agriculture? Easy answer: you can't make money off of that or tax the population and most people can't do much about that, only corporations and the government. Which of course have little real interest in improving the environment or staving off global warming. Governments are taking advantage of the global warming happening by profiting off of it via carbon taxes from the main populace. Anyways, I believe we should do what is in our power to stop global warming: switch to renewables for both vehicles and power plants (within a realistic time frame), plant more trees, etc...

    What we should not do is self defeating things like: not having children (incredibly pointless since they'll just increase 3rd world immigrants with much higher birth rates to replace your lack of children anyways as they are already doing now), carbon taxes (where is the money going to? Is it really being used to reduce emissions or is it merely an act to fill government coffers off of the unsuspecting populace)? Anyways, my main point is let's aim for real practical solutions to global warming and to do that is by recognizing dud solutions and rejecting them and incorporating real practical solutions that actually work.

    In order to do that we need to find out how much of it is human activity and how much of it is not so we can try to slow down the non-human activity factor(s) in other ways. So anyways, I'm not afraid of change. It's rather that I reject change that is self defeating and impractical and I embrace change that is practical and self-fulfilling. This article illustrates why carbon taxes is not a good way to improve the environment and reduce global warming:

    https://energypost.eu/carbon-taxes-a...he-transition/

    I want the same thing as you: an improved environment and stabilizing temperatures worldwide if it is possible. In order to do that we need to find out how much of global warming is man made exactly and implement solutions that will actually work and will actually help us in the long run and reject solutions that don't work and cause more harm than good.

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ave View Post
    While I myself reject the idea of carbon taxes, I can't think of another way to make renewables less expensive than fossil fuels. Of course, it's retarded, because the market doesn't work that way: if you pay less for fossil fuels without biasing the market through taxes, people won't end up paying less for renewables if you do tax fossil fuels. Basically I am saying renewables will become less expensive by comparison to fossil fuels, but not less expensive.

    What would be the incentive to purchase more hybrid and electric cars?

    How do you lower the costs of renewables? The only thing that lowers costs is competition. And the only way to have competition is to get the government out of the economy.

    Let's have some trust in human innovation.
    IMO, I think a better way to make renewables less expensive than fossil fuels is by investing into renewables that are more economically feasible.
    For example if we subsidize nuclear plants and electric cars, I guarantee you CO2 emissions would drop dramatically and thus anthropogenic caused global warming as well:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/o...ear-power.html

    The problem is people are generally afraid of nuclear power and go for more unrealistic solutions like solar or wind power because it is deemed safer, but they are far more ineffective than nuclear power. Ideally, nuclear fusion instead of nuclear fission would be the dream goal as it is far safer and far more powerful than nuclear fission, but for now we have nuclear fission as nuclear fusion has not been discovered yet. Couple that with electrical cars getting powered from these nuclear power plants instead of coal power plants, which cancels it out.
    Last edited by Raver; 06-05-2019 at 02:28 AM.
    "Nothing happens until the pain of staying the same outweighs the pain of change."

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  34. #34

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,222
    Mentioned
    225 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    Earth temperatures have increased or decreased naturally because of natural CO2 emissions and because of non-CO2 reasons too:

    So basically, CO2 is a factor in global temperataure increase, but it's not the only factor. There is some correlation with temperature increases in the past with CO2, but it's not completely linked.
    That's why I said "heat-trapping gases", and not just CO2. The fact is that the only thing that could ever keep the Earth warm is to trap the heat from the sun, or otherwise the heat will dissipate to outside space.

    It doesn't matter if the CO2 emission is "only a very small factor", because we're not part of the carbon cycle. The CO2 that we emit don't get reabsorbed by the trees and the ocean and things like that. Nature had millions of years to stabilize itself and create an equilibrium via the carbon cycle. We're doing that in a matter of centuries.

    So even if we only add CO2 a little bit, it will significantly warm the Earth because again, for one we're not part of the carbon cycle, and two, the extra added heat will produce more water vapor, which traps the heat even more, which creates a vicious cycle of warming up the planet even more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    I agree that we need to lower our dependence on fossil fuels regardless of the circumstances. I just think that we need to stay away from half-hearted solutions like carbon taxes that are questionable and appear to be an excuse to tax the population further.
    I'd say carbon taxes aren't even necessarily, renewables will probably take over, like it or not. Germany's brilliant feed-in-tariff program, despite not being perfect, has been successful at catapulting the use and the spread of renewable energy. During daytime and peak renewable energy production, Germany is already reaching 100% energy consumption from renewable energy.

    So Germany had led the way, and it has led the price of renewable technologies down tremendously.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    Instead of rushing for some impractical goal like 100% renewable energy by 2035, we should slowly phase it out until we eventually reach that goal or close, if it takes a 100 years instead of 10 years then so be it. Slow practical progress is the key to a healthy environment. Not carbon taxes and not setting unrealistic goals that few nations will be capable of doing minus a few exceptions.
    But then we don't have that much time, as the Earth will keep warming up more and more.

    You might think this is all just an exaggeration, but it's like watching an asteroid getting closer and closer, but saying that we should wait a little more and give it some more time.

  35. #35
    In Transition Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,674
    Mentioned
    189 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    I'd say carbon taxes aren't even necessarily, renewables will probably take over, like it or not. Germany's brilliant feed-in-tariff program, despite not being perfect, has been successful at catapulting the use and the spread of renewable energy. During daytime and peak renewable energy production, Germany is already reaching 100% energy consumption from renewable energy.

    So Germany had led the way, and it has led the price of renewable technologies down tremendously.
    Why is the German solar/wind strategy always lauded as the way to go for all countries when the French nuclear strategy has already proven to be superior?

    https://medium.com/third-way/france-...n-85b65090fc96

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    But then we don't have that much time, as the Earth will keep warming up more and more.

    You might think this is all just an exaggeration, but it's like watching an asteroid getting closer and closer, but saying that we should wait a little more and give it some more time.
    Instead of panicking and implementing a solution to global warming that will be costly and possibly ineffective, wouldn't it be better to implement one that will be guaranteed to work? One which will take some time to realize, it may take decades and until then we can transition to electric cars from gas cars and increase nuclear/solar/wind power. The problem is we don't know how big the asteroid is going to hit us and when it will hit us and a lot of people are acting like it's going to be as bad as the one that made the dinosaurs extinct and that it will happen in a few decades.

    So we know there's an asteroid heading towards us, but we don't know how big it is (we don't know how much temperatures will rise) and when it will hit us (maybe we won't see global warming's worst effects for hundreds of years?) and I think by imagining it's the worst case scenario that will happen very soon makes sense in theory because we're playing it safe, but in practice it's just scaremongering and overreacting until we learn everything about it that we can. As of right now, scientists don't know everything about global warming other than it's happening and humans are a factor.
    "Nothing happens until the pain of staying the same outweighs the pain of change."

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  36. #36

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,222
    Mentioned
    225 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    Why is the German solar/wind strategy always lauded as the way to go for all countries when the French nuclear strategy has already proven to be superior?

    https://medium.com/third-way/france-...n-85b65090fc96
    It's not superior really, since even France is reducing dependency on nuclear, and increasing renewables. And what will France do with its nuclear waste? There's still no solution. And we know what happened with Fukushima and Chernobyl. There's no guarantee that there won't be a nuclear meltdown, which is why nuclear reactors are a huge risk these days. The total cost of the clean-up of Fukushima and Chernobyl are in hundreds of billions of dollars.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    Instead of panicking and implementing a solution to global warming that will be costly and possibly ineffective, wouldn't it be better to implement one that will be guaranteed to work?
    Nothing is "guaranteed to work", even renewables aren't guaranteed to work. And yet Germany took a huge risk with the feed-in-tariff program and shutting down nuclear plants, because they believed that renewables will eventually take over. And I think they were right.

  37. #37
    Uncle Ave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,466
    Mentioned
    112 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Perpetual Now View Post
    @
    Uncle Ave

    I'm all for getting the government out of the market. Did you know there's various localities in the USA where people are prohibited from upgrading their homes with solar panels?
    I did not know that.

    What is the (stated) reasoning behind such measures?


  38. #38
    Uncle Ave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,466
    Mentioned
    112 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Muddy View Post
    Most of the big technological leaps of the past century came from publically funded research, not private enterprise. The internet, space satellites, countless vaccines, and GPS are just a few examples out of countless more.
    I noticed alot of inventions come from publically funded research, but also that the improving these inventions to make them what we use in our everyday lives comes from the private sector.

    Btw, I'm obviously not saying capitalism is a prerequisite for the human mind to function, to invent, to innovate, etc, not saying you implied this. I guess what I'm trying to say is that when the human mind is free, free from fear, coercion, shame, or guilt, etc, it is best able to operate. When I say capitalism, I don't mean private enterprise per se, but a politcal system that seprates the economy from politics, kinda like a sepration between church and state. I think this allows for the best in freedom, both in the private sector and without. Wikipedia, for example, is a brilliant invention, and it's not operated for-profit so of course you can do something innovative without being a private company.

    When I say capitalism, I mean a political system that allows freedom of trade and production by separating politics from the economy. Obviously this wouldn't be the law of the jungle, companies couldn't do anything you and I couldn't do, they would still have to follow public laws.

    That is, at least, what I think would be ideal. But maybe I'm crazy.
    Last edited by Uncle Ave; 06-06-2019 at 07:15 PM.


  39. #39
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    5,249
    Mentioned
    657 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ave View Post
    I did not know that.

    What is the (stated) reasoning behind such measures?
    Usually, regulations against altering the appearance of your home are intended to preserve the flavor of a neighborhood. It is fairly common to call these places "historical districts" and I find the idea repugnant, but then I'm Si-PoLR. There are a few nice neighborhoods like that in the city where I live. I don't live there, for that exact reason.

    I live in a neighborhood that is mostly Gamma with some Betas. Lots of professors and entrepreneurs. Somehow, the housing values have continued to rise despite our not being stuck in 1890.

    I want to be able to alter my house as I see fit. Solar panels on the roof, rotating siding boards with mirrors on one side and blackened copper on the other for seasonal heat control, inflatable pink elephant in the back yard, all would be nice. I am a Delta neighbor's nightmare. Fortunately, I don't have any Delta neighbors.

  40. #40

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,222
    Mentioned
    225 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ave View Post
    Btw, I'm obviously not saying capitalism is a prerequisite for the human mind to function, to invent, to innovate, etc, not saying you implied this. I guess what I'm trying to say is that when the human mind is free, free from fear, coercion, shame, or guilt, etc, it is best able to operate. When I say capitalism, I don't mean private enterprise per se, but a politcal system that seprates the economy from politics, kinda like a sepration between church and state. I think this allows for the best in freedom, both in the private sector and without. Wikipedia, for example, is a brilliant invention, and it's not operated for-profit so of course you can do something innovative without being a private company.

    When I say capitalism, I mean a political system that allows freedom of trade and production by separating politics from the economy. Obviously this wouldn't be the law of the jungle, companies couldn't do anything you and I couldn't do, they would still have to follow public laws.

    That is, at least, what I think would be ideal. But maybe I'm crazy.
    I think the free market CAN work, but it's obviously not the only way. There have been successful economies with a lot of government regulation and intervention. Neoliberals and market fundamentalists make the mistake to say that it's the ONLY way.

    But what really drives the innovation and improvements in the end is criticism. And it's the market that creates the criticisms, and not necessarily the private enterprise. There can be criticisms within the enterprise, but without the market pressure, it will become complacent and turn into a monopoly. It's the same with non-democratic political systems. Without criticisms from the people, the authority will become corrupt. Democracy works because people are free to criticize the authority.

    But many market fundamentalists make the mistake that we should make the enterprise free from criticism. They're saying that they would grow if it were not for our constant nagging and criticisms. Well sure, it would be necessarily to encourage them to grow when they're still new, but after that criticisms will become necessary.

    So the whole point of individual freedom etc., is that people are free to criticize things, and therefore improve things. So sometimes, they become critical of the free market. Sometimes good ideas are born out of those criticisms. And out of those ideas new rules and laws are implemented. So what we need is a good system, and not just "let nature handle everything", because nature also creates a lot of bad things, like viruses and parasites that are obviously not good for us. And so in a very free market, there are going to be virus and parasite-like institutions and enterprises. And we do need to find a way to protect against those harmful things, by creating systems and institutions that work like the immune system.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •