| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/31/2009 02:21:39 PM · #276 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
The trillions, if spent in such a way to help the most people in the least amount of time then yes the benefits are worth it. |
Nobody likes waste (well, outside of the defense and hedge fund industries...), but there are no quick solutions. Even if all human GHG emissions were reduced to zero tomorrow, we'd still be feeling the effects for decades to come. The snowball is rolling, so to speak, and solutions will require exponentially more time and expense now than they would have 50 years ago. Rapid climate change is an extinction event, and without immediate and meaningful action the final cost may not matter. |
That's my point. The indirect solutions like promoting R & D for alternative energies, creating better and more efficient solar panels, etc. etc. etc. should be included in the plan. In the long run, this will do greater good for a lower cost than the direct solution alone.
All I hear about are the direct solutions. Applying just a direct solution is not the most cost effective way of approaching the issue (IMO).
eta: The thing is, climate change isn't the only time pressing issue that needs immediate attention. How do we help the most people for the least amount of money? That to me is the key question. However, the answer will be different depending on who you talk to so the debate goes on and nothing happens.
Message edited by author 2009-07-31 14:27:52. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 02:26:17 PM · #277 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
I see it being taken as 'the sky is falling and we need to spend trillions to stop it' |
Exactly right. I would expect the same warning if a mile wide meteor were on a collision course with Earth. Sadly, I would also expect the same response: "There's no meteor- it's a hoax," "This retired chemist in Boise says the meteor won't really hit us," "The damage estimates are wildly overstated" "The solution is too expensive or it won't work," "Meteors are natural and have hit the earth before," "Let's build bomb shelters instead," yadayadayada...
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
...even if the trillions spent really doesn't get us very far. |
How do you know? |
Here's the thing, if its clear cut and undoubtedly true that the meteor is on a collision course with earth (such an alarmist kind of analogy) then people would totally react differently. The progression of the environmental hysteria has been widely inconsistent, for example in the 70's the common mainstream theme was global cooling and the impending ice age. The only consistent factor across the decades has been the hysteria surrounding the topic.
The difference between the meteor and global warming is the certainty factor. At the moment, we can't even verify that the current climate records we have are accurate, apparently NASA fudged the data after Y2K. But the IPCC willingly passed its garbage data as irrefutable fact. Forcing acts like the Kyoto Protocol to be passed. These numbers are disputed by many, so there's definitely no unanimous agreement, however the IPCC continually peddles the false idea that this is WIDELY ACCEPTED based on false mathematical models . We've all seen how models can misbehave - GIGO - garbage in garbage out - look at the current financial crisis and read about how highly sophisticated mathematical models played a huge role.
Only nutcases and crazies could possible disagree with the IPCC. Surely anyone who disagrees with the IPCC is financed by Exxon, that the only possible explanation, it couldn't possibly be because they found evidence to refute their claims. This reminds of how zionists bark at anyone who dares criticize Israel's policy in the middle east and label them as anti-Semites or holocaust deniers.
You have to accept the fact that just because an ideology is mainstream, doesn't make it 100% factual. Was it not believed by many at one time that the earth was flat? What happened when anyone suggested that the earth was round? killed yeah? I guess I'm glad I won't be put to death for doubting the IPCC's data integrity.
Originally posted by scalvert:
At least be honest. You won't believe it because you're determined not to |
I could very well say the same about you. But let me tell you something, I was a die-hard believer in man-made global warming, i grew up thinking that this was a given fact of life. As i got older and learned to do my own critical assessment based on my own reading and judgement, i became aware of of the false facts regularly peddled by the media. I learned not to believe what I see just because it was broadcast on TV. I developed a distrust for politicians because they will say whatever it takes. So yeah, I'm not disagreeing just because I'm determined to disbelieve, its because I've done my reading and developed my opinions, to suggest otherwise is rather insulting.
Message edited by author 2009-07-31 14:30:16. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 02:33:43 PM · #278 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
All I hear about are the direct solutions. Applying just a direct solution is not the most cost effective way of approaching the issue (IMO). |
Agreed, except that I've never heard of a single climatologist pushing only direct solutions. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 02:34:34 PM · #279 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
All I hear about are the direct solutions. Applying just a direct solution is not the most cost effective way of approaching the issue (IMO). |
Agreed, except that I've never heard of a single climatologist pushing only direct solutions. |
Only the politicians. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 02:41:17 PM · #280 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Only the politicians. |
You mean the ones actively calling for better gas mileage, recycling, less waste and more research and reliance on clean energy? I haven't seen politicians calling for ONLY emissions cuts, either. It's just one part of the strategy. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 02:51:34 PM · #281 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Only the politicians. |
You mean the ones actively calling for better gas mileage, recycling, less waste and more research and reliance on clean energy? I haven't seen politicians calling for ONLY emissions cuts, either. It's just one part of the strategy. |
And those policies become law when? Where are the incentives to business to actually act on these? Where is the consumer in all this? As long as consumers still buy gas hog vehicles where's the incentive to make more fuel efficient ones?
eta: just venting -- politicians can say all they want, but until they actually implement policies (I'm talking federally) that reflect their views they're just blowing smoke.
Message edited by author 2009-07-31 15:11:38. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 03:10:52 PM · #282 |
Originally posted by Timosaby:
I'm not disagreeing just because I'm determined to disbelieve, its because I've done my reading and developed my opinions, to suggest otherwise is rather insulting. |
Oh no, I'm not suggesting otherwise. I have no doubt whatsoever that you're doing your reading and developing opinions. It's WHAT you're reading that's making your arguments look ridiculous (GIGO, as you put it). The Exxon thing is a good example... I never said anything like 'all GW critics must be financed by Exxon,' but the geologist you quoted verifiably was. Dismissing an international body of climatologists as an unreliable source of information on climate change while turning to an Exxon-sponsored geologist is particularly laughable. It's like shrugging off a report on lung cancer from 1000 pulmonologists in favor of a contrary opinion from a podiatrist on Philip Morris' payroll.
Every claim, link and video you've posted thus far is completely debunked right here. Global cooling, scientific consensus, Crichton, water vapor, CO2 lag, the IPCC, solar forcing, the works... Not debunked with opinions, newscasters or layman blogs, but with actual data and explanations from the scientists in that field. That's why I said to read the links before you post claims that have already been thoroughly invalidated. Otherwise you're just wasting your time. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 03:27:03 PM · #283 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
And those policies become law when? Where are the incentives to business to actually act on these? Where is the consumer in all this? As long as consumers still buy gas hog vehicles where's the incentive to make more fuel efficient ones? |
Perhaps you missed the multi-thousand dollar tax incentives for buying hybrid cars, the tax and business credits for Energy Star appliances, the 30% tax credit for installing solar panels, similar incentives for wind and geothermal systems, wind turbines popping up around the country, cash for clunkers, California emissions, billions of dollars targeting research and investments in clean energy, credits for more efficient windows, doors, weather sealing, air conditioners and furnaces, compact fluorescent bulb exchange programs and rebates... the list is very long. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 03:51:06 PM · #284 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Instead of throwing all our money at trying to limit the sea level rise, we could take action now with projects and policies to avert disasters. This would help far more people at a much lower cost in a shorter period of time. For me, who cares what the effect of our efforts is in 100 years. What can we do to help NOW?
1) improve levee systems
2) stop developing areas subject to flooding. This only increases the losses in the case of a flood.
(these are only two examples)
The more studies we do, sure, will improve the estimates but studying the issue to death does not improve the situation since no action is taken. |
Short term management is always bad management (ask GM). In the long run, it alway costs less to prevent thing than to cope with consequences. no matter the problem it's apply to. For example, it costs a lot to make sure school cafeteria have healthy food, but so much less than dealing with the problem your 250 pounds 11 years old will have. It cost a lot to take good care of you car, but it costs a lot more to have heavy repairs and pieces remplacement later. Oeven simpler example: It you wash the dishes after each meal, it takes a few minutes and you don't even notice it, if you wait till you don't have anymore clear plates and forks, it takes a hour, and that's a hour you could have spend doing something else.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2009 04:01:02 PM · #285 |
Originally posted by merchillio:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Instead of throwing all our money at trying to limit the sea level rise, we could take action now with projects and policies to avert disasters. This would help far more people at a much lower cost in a shorter period of time. For me, who cares what the effect of our efforts is in 100 years. What can we do to help NOW?
1) improve levee systems
2) stop developing areas subject to flooding. This only increases the losses in the case of a flood.
(these are only two examples)
The more studies we do, sure, will improve the estimates but studying the issue to death does not improve the situation since no action is taken. |
Short term management is always bad management (ask GM). In the long run, it alway costs less to prevent thing than to cope with consequences. no matter the problem it's apply to. For example, it costs a lot to make sure school cafeteria have healthy food, but so much less than dealing with the problem your 250 pounds 11 years old will have. It cost a lot to take good care of you car, but it costs a lot more to have heavy repairs and pieces remplacement later. Oeven simpler example: It you wash the dishes after each meal, it takes a few minutes and you don't even notice it, if you wait till you don't have anymore clear plates and forks, it takes a hour, and that's a hour you could have spend doing something else. |
Your example of healthy food works because in the long run the result is better health. Also, if preventative actions like better levees (existing ones - don't go creating new ones) and stopping development in flood prone areas will, in the long run, reduce the effect of floods. This is long term management, not short term. Here the most expensive program is not necessarily the one to bring the most benefit.
Message edited by author 2009-07-31 16:33:48. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 04:12:33 PM · #286 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
And those policies become law when? Where are the incentives to business to actually act on these? Where is the consumer in all this? As long as consumers still buy gas hog vehicles where's the incentive to make more fuel efficient ones? |
Perhaps you missed the multi-thousand dollar tax incentives for buying hybrid cars, the tax and business credits for Energy Star appliances, the 30% tax credit for installing solar panels, similar incentives for wind and geothermal systems, wind turbines popping up around the country, cash for clunkers, California emissions, billions of dollars targeting research and investments in clean energy, credits for more efficient windows, doors, weather sealing, air conditioners and furnaces, compact fluorescent bulb exchange programs and rebates... the list is very long. |
You seem to have all the answers so I'll ask the question, how effective are these programs? Emissions went up over the past decade in the US didn't they? (as they did here) From stats/capita, Canada is worse than the US but in total emissions the US tops the list.
Message edited by author 2009-07-31 16:33:01. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 04:39:57 PM · #287 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
From stats/capita, Canada is worse than the US but in total emissions the US tops the list. |
Damn Harper, that fossile fuel loving fool.... At least some provinces have some senses (God I love Hydroelectricity!)
|
|
|
|
07/31/2009 04:43:50 PM · #288 |
| I think China has recently passed the US in total emissions, but remember they have nearly 25% of the world's population, while the US is only about 5% ... |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 04:48:56 PM · #289 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
...how effective are these programs? |
Well the Cash for Clunkers program is obviously having some success in swapping gas guzzlers for more efficient models. I don't know if there's a single compilation of results from all the various incentives, but it certainly has a significant impact. Here's just one:
As of the beginning of October 2008, 84 bases have installed 359,268 CFLS in 40,951 housing units. These light bulb change-outs are estimated to:
Save over 100 million kilowatt-hours over the life of the bulbs, a substantial reduction in national energy use;
Cut nearly $11 million in energy costs over the life of the bulbs; and,
Prevent the emissions of more than 150 million pounds of carbon dioxide.
Some eye-popping numbers on Energy Star. Of course, simply having these programs is one thing. Getting people to participate is quite another, especially if they're willing to believe everything is peachy against the nearly unanimous warnings of researchers.
Message edited by author 2009-07-31 16:58:07. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 04:55:27 PM · #290 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I think China has recently passed the US in total emissions, but remember they have nearly 25% of the world's population, while the US is only about 5% ... |
I believe the figures I was looking at (most recent on that site) were 2005. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 04:57:30 PM · #291 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I think China has recently passed the US in total emissions, but remember they have nearly 25% of the world's population, while the US is only about 5% ... |
I believe the figures I was looking at (most recent on that site) were 2005. |
Even if the US is reducing emissions, since China and India have a much larger population, the total output of the world goes up. Until there are world wide programs/incentives, trying to reduce emissions will be a losing battle. Not saying that we don't do our part, just saying that there has to be a worldwide solution to the problem. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 05:14:49 PM · #292 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Not saying that we don't do our part, just saying that there has to be a worldwide solution to the problem. |
And isn't that what things like Kyoto and Copenghagen are intended to accomplish? |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 05:28:43 PM · #293 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Even if the US is reducing emissions, since China and India have a much larger population, the total output of the world goes up. |
Not quite. China and India have always had larger populations than the U.S., but contributed considerably less to world emissions until recently (China passed the U.S. in 2008). It's not the population itself, but current and future industrial development that's a problem (Africa has a larger population than India, but contributes less carbon than Japan by itself).
In June 2007, China unveiled a 62-page climate change plan and promised to put climate change at the center of its energy policy and insisted that developed countries had an Ć¢unshirkable responsibilityĆ¢ to take the lead on cutting greenhouse gas emissions and that the principle of "common but differentiated responsibility", as agreed up in the UNFCCC, should be applied.
India's being more stubborn. They do have a point that the U.S. produces 20 tons of CO2 per person annually vs. 4 in China and 1.1 in India, but I believe their comparative vulnerability to climate change (especially coastal flooding and drought from dwindling Himalayan glaciers) will force the issue within the next few years. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 06:55:52 PM · #294 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Not saying that we don't do our part, just saying that there has to be a worldwide solution to the problem. |
And isn't that what things like Kyoto and Copenghagen are intended to accomplish? |
Those plans, as far as I can see are single minded, not cost effective and benefit fewer people in the long run than other solutions. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 07:00:50 PM · #295 |
I'm talking about the overall concept of getting together with other countries and working out what would be a workable plan, not any specific components proposed in the past or so far.
What's your suggestion anyway? If you can figure out a way to reduce energy use without impinging on quality of life you might be able to make some bucks out of the "green economy." |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 07:20:53 PM · #296 |
I have never said it won't impact the quality of life but components proposed in the past have been far too expensive and provided little improvement over long periods of time.
Unfortunately, both sides of this argument are so polarized that no real discussion has taken place to try and resolve it. Only time will tell if what came out of Copenhagen can be developed into a plan that will benefit the most for the least cost over the shortest period of time. I'm not saying it's easy, because it isn't.
Yes, the overall concept of getting together is a good one.
Kyoto's dead. It expires I think in 2010 and noone who's signed on to it has really made any progress in achieving its goals. Does that mean they were unrealistic? Maybe. It depends on who you talk to. My biggest beef is with the plan to achieve the goal, not the goal itself. By single minded I mean extreme direct cuts to carbon emissions. Some direct cuts are required but in conjunction with other solutions which will indirectly and positively impact carbon emissions. Maybe the direct cuts is just what is focused on in public forums and there really is, as part of the plan, to go at the issue indirectly as well. Who knows.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2009 07:25:42 PM · #297 |
| And I still don't hear you offering a concrete suggestion for helping the situation in a way which isn't too expensive and provides significant improvement. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 07:32:29 PM · #298 |
Oh. I guess my alternatives mentioned earlier in the thread aren't up to snuff. Oh well. Maybe you can come up with something, or just go with the flow. Whatever.
Anyway, I said more cost effective, not inexpensive. I believe any solution is going to be expensive but the most expensive isn't necessarily the most cost effective.
Message edited by author 2009-07-31 19:38:17. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 07:38:42 PM · #299 |
Maybe I missed them ... I see a lot of text ;-)
One immediately practical method is to replace dark roofs and pavement with lighter materials ... Heat Island Group website
Message edited by author 2009-07-31 19:56:02. |
|
|
|
08/07/2009 10:05:26 AM · #300 |
Thank you global warming alarmist! I have not laughed this hard in awhile.
Link
The giant mirrors in space idea is a much better idea if you ask me. Much funnier then the unmanned wind powered cloud making boats! |
|
