Good luck to our kids

[HALL85]

But we have to pay for the innovation. I don't really blame someone who can't afford to pay an environmentally friendly premium.

People don't just want the best product. They want the best produce in a certain price range. Innovation makes things prohibitively expensive in a free market when the environmentally unfriendly product is cheap. The only way to change the equation there is through government funding and/or inceptives.

Side note - Electric cars are so much better unless you go on frequent longer distance trips. I will be interested to see how well the Ford F-150 lightning sells. It's made in America, better than it's gas counterpart and with incentives will be priced well to compete with the gas f-150.

Yes some cannot afford it, it's true. The majority probably can. See whose buying $1,000 cell phones annually or every 2 years. If the products are so good people will find a way to make that happen. I've met many people who can't afford Catholic grammar school yet drive BMWs.

Exactly. You cant successfully incentivize people if their priorities are just different. Various states are paying people $100 just to get the vaccine and it really hasn’t move the needle much.

Once again if the situation is so dire, it should be an all hands on deck with the government and private industry to save the earth. Just like we saw with OWS.

why can’t we just work on making the environment better within the construct of our economy?

 

[Merge]

Yes some cannot afford it, it's true. The majority probably can. See whose buying $1,000 cell phones annually or every 2 years. If the products are so good people will find a way to make that happen. I've met many people who can't afford Catholic grammar school yet drive BMWs.

"Can afford it" shouldn't be the debate. It's an added fee for a product that isn't really going to directly impact your quality of life. People aren't going to spend extra, and honestly it is unfair to ask them to if we expect that this is for the benefit of mankind.

Lightbulbs are a good example of this.
LED bulbs are a superior product with a significantly longer lifespan but people flipped out when the government tried to get rid of them. Free market says give me my cheap lightbulbs.

 

[Merge]

Once again if the situation is so dire, it should be an all hands on deck with the government and private industry to save the earth. Just like we saw with OWS.

You can't compare the impact of climate change to a Global Pandemic. One situation is dire immediately. The other, dire doesn't happen for decades even though it may require action now.

But yes... Government should be throwing money at R&D to private companies. Just like they did with OWS.

 

[seton1996]

To answer your questions-

I try not to use Amazon, I'd rather support stores in my town. Some stuff is only available online though.

Dont drink Fiji bottled water

Dont have a beach house

My phone is 5 years old with a cracked screen. I get a good chuckle from those that buy a new phone every year.

I live in a 1200 sq. Ft. Home (officially it's less than that, but I finished basement) well below my means. I did put in central air, minimal increase in my electric bill since house is small. It wont be my forever home but I dont have a desire for anything over 1800-2000 sq ft.

And I applaud you for a lot of the things you listed above, I try to do similar.

Would like to have beach house if things ever worked out that way. Maybe I could put solar panels on the roof to help environment. lol

 

[anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0]

And I applaud you for a lot of the things you listed above, I try to do similar.

Would like to have beach house if things ever worked out that way. Maybe I could put solar panels on the roof to help environment. lol

Hahahha same. I wouldn't complain about one. Lake house might be better though with sea level rise 30 years out.

 

[SHUMA04]

Exxon did their own internal report 40 years ago on what global temperatures would be next year noting that carbon emissions was driving the increase and pretty much got it exactly correct.

the scientists I am referring to though are preparing studies that are peer reviewed. True scientists welcome criticism and debate, and there has been plenty of debate over the last couple decades as we watch the predictions of 20 years ago actually happening.

If you don’t want to trust the peer review process, that’s fine. I choose to believe they are doing the best they can. I don’t expect them to be 100% correct. I expect them to come up with the best analysis and adjust when needed.

If you honestly believe that "peer reviewed" is a synonym for "objective," then I'd strongly suggest you go back to Seton Hall and speak with some of your professors.

There are topics that -- no matter how compelling the data -- will simply never got published because they do not suit the prevailing agendas.

Want to publish cold data driven evidence that Trump's economic policies led to one of the most historic investment booms in US history? That the Euro was a disastrous innovation and nations should exit it while they still can? That ethnic diversity historically weakens rather than strengthens nation states? That immigration from certain nations is less desirable than others? That diversity programs actually lead to poor economic performance? That certain lifestyles lead to increased depression and suicides? That many women would be more content in life as stay at home mothers than doing a 9 to 5?

The notion that we live in a society where our academic institutions (including "peer reviewed journals") are free from agendas is incredibly naive.

 

[Hallsome]

And vice versa?

Was this the counter phrase you used when knees asked you to like all

If the problem were obvious and short term, I agree. But the market just isn't going fix a problem that is 20,30 or 50 years away (if there is one) though. Without government intervention, we will just keep kicking the can down the road and leave it for the next generation to fix.

You have to project scientific studies to project what the uncertain future looks like, and these are all best guesses based on probability. Just because the projections present a scary path, that doesn't mean we shouldn't tell people what the path of not doing enough might look like - Certain or not.

Is the new infrastructure bill a good start (or if I think US gov has already begun to try to fix things a good next step)?

Who is holding chinas feet to the fire?

How about South American rain forests?

And those damn cows farting?

First question is legit and the others are rhetorical

 

[Hallsome]

Unfortunately our political system and process is set up for this type of long-range planning and collaboration. First thing that needs to get done to make this a reality, is get the money out of politics. None of this is going to happen as long as there are special interests that can influence a long range plan. Both sides shout at each other and pocket money in the process.

Term limits on senators etc

 

[Hallsome]

To answer your questions-

I try not to use Amazon, I'd rather support stores in my town. Some stuff is only available online though.

Dont drink Fiji bottled water

Dont have a beach house

My phone is 5 years old with a cracked screen. I get a good chuckle from those that buy a new phone every year.

I live in a 1200 sq. Ft. Home (officially it's less than that, but I finished basement) well below my means. I did put in central air, minimal increase in my electric bill since house is small. It wont be my forever home but I dont have a desire for anything over 1800-2000 sq ft.

Ha! So one is hurting because they have a beach house? Or how about the taxes on a 10K SF house.
dont drink Fiji water.

too funny

this all was satire, right?

 

[Hallsome]

Hahahha same. I wouldn't complain about one. Lake house might be better though with sea level rise 30 years out.

Buy west side of barrier island

 

[Merge]

If you honestly believe that "peer reviewed" is a synonym for "objective," then I'd strongly suggest you go back to Seton Hall and speak with some of your professors.

There are topics that -- no matter how compelling the data -- will simply never got published because they do not suit the prevailing agendas.

Want to publish cold data driven evidence that Trump's economic policies led to one of the most historic investment booms in US history? That the Euro was a disastrous innovation and nations should exit it while they still can? That ethnic diversity historically weakens rather than strengthens nation states? That immigration from certain nations is less desirable than others? That diversity programs actually lead to poor economic performance? That certain lifestyles lead to increased depression and suicides? That many women would be more content in life as stay at home mothers than doing a 9 to 5?

The notion that we live in a society where our academic institutions (including "peer reviewed journals") are free from agendas is incredibly naive.

Have you thought about the opposite end of that spectrum in regards to what you just said?

Have you considered the billions and billions that fossil fuel companies have spent to convince you climate change isn’t real? Scientific research paid for (and hidden I some instances pretending they were objective studies) has been published plenty of times.

I’m not really even arguing I’m 100% certain what would happen if we do nothing. I just happen to believe that actions we would take benefit us in many other ways with not much down side, so why not?

 

[Merge]

Is the new infrastructure bill a good start (or if I think US gov has already begun to try to fix things a good next step)?

Would never turn my nose at progress. Yes, some good next steps.

 

[Hallsome]

Have you thought about the opposite end of that spectrum in regards to what you just said?

Have you considered the billions and billions that fossil fuel companies have spent to convince you climate change isn’t real? Scientific research paid for (and hidden I some instances pretending they were objective studies) has been published plenty of times.

I’m not really even arguing I’m 100% certain what would happen if we do nothing. I just happen to believe that actions we would take benefit us in many other ways with not much down side, so why not?

So let’s do it the right way.
The infrastructure bill is a shit start

 

[Hallsome]

Would never turn my nose at progress. Yes, some good next steps.

Some is the operative word you used
Lots of nonsense too

 

[SHUMA04]

Have you thought about the opposite end of that spectrum in regards to what you just said?

Have you considered the billions and billions that fossil fuel companies have spent to convince you climate change isn’t real? Scientific research paid for (and hidden I some instances pretending they were objective studies) has been published plenty of times.

I’m not really even arguing I’m 100% certain what would happen if we do nothing. I just happen to believe that actions we would take benefit us in many other ways with not much down side, so why not?

Of course I have. Not to mention tobacco companies, pharmaceutical companies, various agrifood lobbies etc. I was only responding to the assertion that "scientists" are to be trusted because of "models" and "peer reviewed studies."

Also, realize that the true proposition of fossils fuels is that they are proven, cheap, plentiful and reliable. Their appeal has nothing to do with belief in or rejection of "climate change."

That however doesn't address my fundamental point: that "climate change" activism is nothing else than a faith-based belief/values system and is not based on sound science or objective reasoning.

 

[Merge]

That however doesn't address my fundamental point: that "climate change" activism is nothing else than a faith-based belief/values system and is not based on sound science or objective reasoning.

And again, vice versa...

 

[SHUMA04]

And again, vice versa...

True. I never said anything else. Some believe in man made climate change, others don't.

Either way, it's a belief system and not proven science.

For that reason, it's utterly unwise for the United States to abdicate the world's largest, cheapest and most plentiful supply of oil, gas and coal (the bedrock of our prosperity for over a century) for a unproven belief system.

 

[anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0]

Ha! So one is hurting because they have a beach house? Or how about the taxes on a 10K SF house.
dont drink Fiji water.

too funny

this all was satire, right?

I was just answering the questions posed. You should ask the questionnaire maker.

 

[Merge]

True. I never said anything else. Some believe in man made climate change, others don't.

Either way, it's a belief system and not proven science.

For that reason, it's utterly unwise for the United States to abdicate the world's largest, cheapest and most plentiful supply of oil, gas and coal (the bedrock of our prosperity for over a century) for a unproven belief system.

Well, I disagree about the proven science part.
Carbon increases temperature. That is proven science. Human activity increased carbon output into the atmosphere. That is proven science.

The “belief system” is thinking think that humans can continue on this trajectory without consequence.

Not sure why anyone would subscribe to that religion when it is painfully clear that burning fossil fuels causes pollution to the air we breath at a minimum.

The “bedrock of our prosperity” is a nice slogan, but absolute nonsense as an argument to ignore progress. American homes were all heated by burning wood and coal during that progress. Did people argue against using oil and natural gas much of which would be due to the government creating the necessary energy infrastructure? What has you so committed to arguing against progress now?

again, if all of the scientists are lying or wrong about global warming, what is the consequence of action now?
Cleaner air, cleaner water, millions of new jobs etc.

Its utterly unwise for that? Really? While we just watch other countries making advancements in the industry?

 

[HALL85]

Well, I disagree about the proven science part.
Carbon increases temperature. That is proven science. Human activity increased carbon output into the atmosphere. That is proven science.

The “belief system” is thinking think that humans can continue on this trajectory without consequence.

Not sure why anyone would subscribe to that religion when it is painfully clear that burning fossil fuels causes pollution to the air we breath at a minimum.

The “bedrock of our prosperity” is a nice slogan, but absolute nonsense as an argument to ignore progress. American homes were all heated by burning wood and coal during that progress. Did people argue against using oil and natural gas much of which would be due to the government creating the necessary energy infrastructure? What has you so committed to arguing against progress now?

again, if all of the scientists are lying or wrong about global warming, what is the consequence of action now?
Cleaner air, cleaner water, millions of new jobs etc.

Its utterly unwise for that? Really? While we just watch other countries making advancements in the industry?

These kinds of decisions need to be made in the grand scheme of improving quality of life and maintaining and advancing our competitiveness economically. We don’t have an unlimited amount of money, nor can we make decisions that cause too much economic upheaval.

 

[anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0]

These kinds of decisions need to be made in the grand scheme of improving quality of life and maintaining and advancing our competitiveness economically. We don’t have an unlimited amount of money, nor can we make decisions that cause too much economic upheaval.

Tell that to the politicians & fed, they just keep printing money 😂

 

[Pirata]

Back to global warming and climate change I would like to see funding of more research to determine the relative amount of CO2 emissions from industry as compared to the CO2 produced by the oceans.

The fundamental issue of climate change is whether or not industrial CO2 is causing an additional warming on top of the natural cycles of climate change.

 

[Merge]

These kinds of decisions need to be made in the grand scheme of improving quality of life and maintaining and advancing our competitiveness economically. We don’t have an unlimited amount of money, nor can we make decisions that cause too much economic upheaval.

Of course, we would need to understand the economic impact for any spending over time.

 

[Merge]

Back to global warming and climate change I would like to see funding of more research to determine the relative amount of CO2 emissions from industry as compared to the CO2 produced by the oceans.

The fundamental issue of climate change is whether or not industrial CO2 is causing an additional warming on top of the natural cycles of climate change.

They have done this with analyzing carbon parts per million in the atmosphere over the last 800,000 years. It is currently more than 30% higher than at any point over the last 800,000 years. The growth rate over the last 60 years is 100x faster than previous natural cycles.

 

[Pirata]

Does your study attribute the cause?

 

[Merge]

Does your study attribute the cause?

The studies I’ve read do usually show the data but currently on my phone. Visiting family for the weekend and don’t have access toy laptop. Happy to find something for you in a couple days.

 

[SHUMA04]

Well, I disagree about the proven science part.
Carbon increases temperature. That is proven science. Human activity increased carbon output into the atmosphere. That is proven science.

The “belief system” is thinking think that humans can continue on this trajectory without consequence.

Not sure why anyone would subscribe to that religion when it is painfully clear that burning fossil fuels causes pollution to the air we breath at a minimum.

The “bedrock of our prosperity” is a nice slogan, but absolute nonsense as an argument to ignore progress. American homes were all heated by burning wood and coal during that progress. Did people argue against using oil and natural gas much of which would be due to the government creating the necessary energy infrastructure? What has you so committed to arguing against progress now?

again, if all of the scientists are lying or wrong about global warming, what is the consequence of action now?
Cleaner air, cleaner water, millions of new jobs etc.

Its utterly unwise for that? Really? While we just watch other countries making advancements in the industry?

I had written a longer response but I will just leave it at this: this is an ideology and not driven by any practical economic or national security considerations.

It is indeed utterly unwise for the United States to forfeit its comparative advantages on which its post 1865 economy and global military preeminence has been based for nothing more than a highly questionable and dangerous early 21st century zeitgeist.

It is relatively less unwise (and maybe even advantageous) for other nations (eg Germany, France, China, Japan, India etc) to push such agendas because they do not have such comparative advantages. The net effect of an “energy transition” for these nations would actually be to close the gap strategically and economically with the United States.

 

[Merge]

I had written a longer response but I will just leave it at this: this is an ideology and not driven by any practical economic or national security considerations.

It is indeed utterly unwise for the United States to forfeit its comparative advantages on which its post 1865 economy has been based for nothing more than a highly questionable and dangerous early 21st century zeitgeist.

Good lord, who said anything about forfeiting anything?

It’s not a switch you flip. You advance and move forward. Did we abandon our advantages when we started building nuclear plants?

investments in the future do not mean you give up an advantage. Quite the opposite actually.

 

[HALL85]

Good lord, who said anything about forfeiting anything?

It’s not a switch you flip. You advance and move forward. Did we abandon our advantages when we started building nuclear plants?

investments in the future do not mean you give up an advantage. Quite the opposite actually.

But isn’t that the essence of the conversation? Making decisions based on the environment, sound economic policy and competitiveness. Not just “do something.”

 

[SHUMA04]

Good lord, who said anything about forfeiting anything?

It’s not a switch you flip. You advance and move forward. Did we abandon our advantages when we started building nuclear plants?

investments in the future do not mean you give up an advantage. Quite the opposite actually.

Your arguments are getting vaguer and more emotional as we go along. And that makes sense as it’s driven by ideology rather than facts or reason.

When you set extreme targets such as 50% EVs by 2030 (even though you are the world’s largest producer of oil and gas) or 100% renewables by 2050, yes you are forfeiting your comparative advantage. When you ideologically stigmatize coal and artificially distort its pricing — even though you control 1/4 of the world’s reserves of coal and have countless billions invested in perfectly viable long life coal power plants — yes, you are forfeiting your advantages.

 

[HALL85]

Your arguments are getting vaguer and more emotional as we go along. And that makes sense as it’s driven by ideology rather than facts or reason.

When you set extreme targets such as 50% EVs by 2030 (even though you are the world’s largest producer of oil and gas) or 100% renewables by 2050, yes you are forfeiting your comparative advantage. When you ideologically stigmatize coal and artificially distort its pricing — even though you control 1/4 of the world’s reserves of coal and have countless billions invested in perfectly viable long life coal power plants — yes, you are forfeiting your advantages.

You’re applying logic and strategic thinking to the problem at hand. Which is what we should be doing. Or you can manipulate a 10-year-old girl and make it all about guilt and emotion.

 

[sami]

You’re applying logic and strategic thinking to the problem at hand. Which is what we should be doing. Or you can manipulate a 10-year-old girl and make it all about guilt and emotion.

How Dare You!

 

[HALL85]

https://www.axios.com/ipcc-un-clima...ion-d590ae0d-4e42-4112-9f33-510d24078834.html

interest also waning a bit (“dire” headlines had a one day shelf life), but what the article doesn’t address was that coincidentally the media blitz on global warming was amped up because it was about mobilizing the vote against Trump.

 

[Merge]

Your arguments are getting vaguer and more emotional as we go along. And that makes sense as it’s driven by ideology rather than facts or reason.

When you set extreme targets such as 50% EVs by 2030 (even though you are the world’s largest producer of oil and gas) or 100% renewables by 2050, yes you are forfeiting your comparative advantage. When you ideologically stigmatize coal and artificially distort its pricing — even though you control 1/4 of the world’s reserves of coal and have countless billions invested in perfectly viable long life coal power plants — yes, you are forfeiting your advantages.

Not really. Coal is old technology.
You’re arguing against advancement because people spent money building coal reactors?

Stigmatizing coal? I don’t care about coals feelings. It’s dirty, bad for the environment and bluntly our health as well. There is correlation between coal plants closing and asthma in children around the plants decreasing afterwards.

 

[Merge]

But isn’t that the essence of the conversation? Making decisions based on the environment, sound economic policy and competitiveness.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.

 

[SHUMA04]

Not really. Coal is old technology.
You’re arguing against advancement because people spent money building coal reactors?

Stigmatizing coal? I don’t care about coals feelings. It’s dirty, bad for the environment and bluntly our health as well. There is correlation between coal plants closing and asthma in children around the plants decreasing afterwards.

Right on cue. "Against advancement" and in favor of harming children...

 

[SPK145]

Not really. Coal is old technology.
You’re arguing against advancement because people spent money building coal

Somebody better tell China, they’re building a ton of new coal plants.

 

[Merge]

Right on cue. "Against advancement" and in favor of harming children...

The first part is correct. The second is harsher than I would have said. More like indifferent to the health impacts toll of burning carbon fuels. It’s part of the discussion.

 

[Merge]

Somebody better tell China, they’re building a ton of new coal plants.

They are building a ton of new everything. They actually added more GW of capacity from solar last year than coal. Renewables were double the increase in coal, and they have also been increasing nuclear at a fair clip as well.

 

[HALL85]

They are building a ton of new everything. They actually added more GW of capacity from solar last year than coal. Renewables were double the increase in coal, and they have also been increasing nuclear at a fair clip as well.

Are those China’s numbers?