How Much Money Will You Pay For Green Energy?

[Michael Hardner]

.

I don't mean to be patronizing or insulting Michael when I say I think my opinion has more scientific basis than perhaps your own! Certainly, more than the average Arts graduate.

Unfortunately, if someone doesn't have a high enough basic level of science in the first place it can be almost impossible to convince them! They form their opinions on the confidence inspired by the showmanship or prestige level of their sources, which is not scientific at all.

So first of all, I note that you have argued from authority here. The thing is, once you have engaged in that kind of argument, you implicitly allow it to be used against you. You have no idea of my qualifications for example.

Let me ask where you got your ideas, I.e. that global warming is, I presume NOT man made ?

[Oleg Bach]

So first of all, I note that you have argued from authority here. The thing is, once you have engaged in that kind of argument, you implicitly allow it to be used against you. You have no idea of my qualifications for example.

Let me ask where you got your ideas, I.e. that global warming is, I presume NOT man made ?

Mike is smarter than me - and that is saying alot..

[CitizenX]

How about using some common sense...

More fuel efficient cars.

More mass transportation.

Less clear cutting of forests.

More use of green technology like solar and wind.

Better city planning that allows for safer bicycle transportation, and walking.

Better building codes that require better energy reduction.

Edited August 8, 2011 by CitizenX

[CitizenX]

This is a dumb thread. I repeat over and over again that in order to make money you must destroy the environment to a degree...so how can you improve the envrionment with money

Maybe it points to the fact that since the discovery and use of fossil fuels as a energy source people have become spoiled. As shown all through history people are selfish, and only think of them selves. This resource could have been used for generations upon generations in a responsible manner.

I really can't think of one generation that thought of the next generation.

[bush_cheney2004]

I really can't think of one generation that thought of the next generation.

Why should they...the very idea is silly, right down to the concept of a generation. Let me guess...you are young and are worried about your "generation's" future...how selfish is that?

[TimG]

How about using some common sense...

And where is your evidence that the cost of implementing your "common sense" will be worth it? It does not automatically follow that just because we could do something that it makes economic sense to do. For each of the things you suggested there needs to be a business case where the cost of implementation is weighed against the likely benefit. In most of your examples the actual benefit in terms of CO2 reductions is so miniscule that they cannot be justified - even if one accepts that CO2 is a clear and present danger.

You have just outed your self. You are a climate change denier, so no matter what I say you will disagree.

Really? What evidence do you have for that assertion? The fact that I think CO migitigation schemes are scams that will not work? What does that have to do with my opinion of the science? (hint: nothing!). Many people do not question the science of CO2 yet think the *policies* being proposed are idiotic. The fact that you throw around labels like "denier" says more about your closed mind religious zealotry than anything else.

I on the other hand don't have the luxury of your knowledge so I must rely on the majority of scientifical opinions.

Can you read? I explained that if you want to argue for CO2 mitigation policies you must provide appropriate experts to support your claims. By that I mean *engineers* and *economists* that can confirm that the policies would be useful and effective. Yet instead of providing the opinions of such experts you start throwing insults and revert appeals to the meaningless authority of climate scientists.

I will repeat that again: teh opionion of climate scientists is irrelevant when it comes to determining what mix of mitigation and adaption we should adopt. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Edited August 6, 2011 by TimG

[CitizenX]

Why should they...the very idea is silly, right down to the concept of a generation. Let me guess...you are young and are worried about your "generation's" future...how selfish is that?

I'm sorry I would like to respond, but can make no sense of what you are babbling about.

[CitizenX]

TimG obviously you aren't understanding me.

1) you are a climate denier so you think this subject is just a waste of time and money. Why don't you just say that and we can agree to disagree. You keep using economical reasons to proof that I am wrong and on the wrong path. In other words you want me to drink your cool aid.

2) I believe all the scientific research, and believe that I personally am experiencing climate change right now. I care about humanity and don't want to see the changes that are coming (fact). I don't think economy comes into this issue at all. Like I said money, and the economy will not be an issue in a future when everyone is struggling to exist period.

We live in two different worlds. My reality is where reason and ethics rule.

Edited August 7, 2011 by CitizenX

[bush_cheney2004]

....We live in two different worlds. My reality is where reason and ethics rule.

Nope...you live in the same world as the rest of us, and it is based on the massive consumption of hydrocarbons.

[CitizenX]

Nope...you live in the same world as the rest of us, and it is based on the massive consumption of hydrocarbons.

Yes.. I didn't think you lived here too? Welcome to reason land. Now if you could just admit that this is a problem you will be half way there. It's the first step.

Edited August 7, 2011 by CitizenX

[TimG]

I dont think economy comes into this issue at all. Like I said money, and the economy will not be an issue in a future when everyone is struggling to exist period.

Whether you like or not, our society lives and dies by economics. Every day billions of people make decisions based on economics. You cannot escape it - no matter what. We cannot have a climate policy without considering economics. It simply cannot be done.

We live in two different worlds. My reality is where reason and ethics rule.

ROTFL. You just said you reject economics as a basis for making decisions about government policy! That is not a position based on reason! It is deluded fantasy. Edited August 7, 2011 by TimG

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Everyone supports a greener Earth but what is your price?

I don't buy crap I don't need, or upgrade tech just because there is something newer.

I will live in my smaller house, even though I can afford more because it is more efficient and cost effective. Too many people buy big houses that cost more to heat, more to cool, take up more land, and require more maintenance.

I set my AC to 78 during the summer and open my windows at night to cool down the house. I shut all of the windows where the sun comes in to keep my house cool without AC. I rarely need AC because I shut the windows in the morning to keep the cool air in.

I set my heat to 68 in the winter and open my windows so the sun can heat up my house during the day.

I hang my laundry on a clothes line in the summer.

I drive the speed limit and reduce my gas consumption 15%-20%.

I'm already fairly green for my area. I'd be willing to pay more for green energy.

People need to understand that they can already improve their efficiency at home aswell. If costs go up, most people and mitigate them by being smart about it.

Edited August 7, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[CitizenX]

TimG just admit your are a climate change denier. No judgments here. I won't try to convert you.

Edited August 7, 2011 by CitizenX

[TimG]

TimG just admit your are a climate change denier. No judgments here. I won't try to convert you.

The point of these forums is to post reasoned counter arguments. Anyone who posts here expecting to 'convert' people is going to be disappointed - no matter what the topic.

The real reason you are resorting to such a response is you do not have a counter argument. You know that the CO2 mitigation policies that you prefer cannot stand up to a serious economic analysis so you chose to disguise your retreat rather than simply admit it.

[CitizenX]

The point of these forums is to post reasoned counter arguments. Anyone who posts here expecting to 'convert' people is going to be disappointed - no matter what the topic.

The real reason you are resorting to such a response is you do not have a counter argument. You know that the CO2 mitigation policies that you prefer cannot stand up to a serious economic analysis so you chose to disguise your retreat rather than simply admit it.

I have stated my counter argument, without a world, money is of no use.

I have stated what side of the debate that I stand on. But you won't admit yours. If you are not a climate change denier then admit that man made climate change is a problem.

I feel like I'm talking to a delusional alcoholic trying to get him to admit his problem and to go to AA.

Edited August 7, 2011 by CitizenX

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes.. I didn't think you lived here too? Welcome to reason land. Now if you could just admit that this is a problem you will be half way there. It's the first step.

Since you are a newbie to this forum you don't know that we have already been over this at least a dozen times. Things peaked about two years ago then economic realities and corruption gutted the movement here and around the world. Most members who championed the cause have slowly drifted away in the face of this new reality.

[CitizenX]

Since you are a newbie to this forum you don't know that we have already been over this at least a dozen times. Things peaked about two years ago then economic realities and corruption gutted the movement here and around the world. Most members who championed the cause have slowly drifted away in the face of this new reality.

[bush_cheney2004]

Sorry, not even multiple references to American data or media can save the day...others have already tried that...from NASA to nanotechnology.

[TimG]

I have stated my counter argument, without a world, money is of no use.

An absolutely meaningless platitude that makes no sense. Where is your evidence that there will be no money in the future? Climate scientists are not even saying that. The 97% that you love to throw around only agree that CO2 is rising due to humans and that will cause between 1degC and 5degC of temperature change in the next 100 years. Nothing in that statement implies there will be no money.

Your problem is you don't understand economics. If you did you would realize that economics is not about money - it is about how human societies operate. Economics is relevant as long as two or more humans create a society where individuals cooperate by specializing.

BTW - In previous threads I have stated clearly that I agree with what the IPCC WG1 says about CO2. Where I disagree is with the policy choices being pushed.

Edited August 7, 2011 by TimG

[CitizenX]

An absolutely meaningless platitude that makes no sense. Where is your evidence that there will be no money in the future? Climate scientists are not even saying that.

????? try reading what I said again

Or maybe I'll re-phrase it differently for you.

Without a future society (world) in which to exist.....What is the point of talking about an economy (money)?????

It's like talking about how your going to spend all your money after you die.

I've tried making this as simple as possible and used as many small words as I can. I think discussing this subject with you might actually lower my IQ.

Does your daddy know you are using his computer little guy?

Edited August 7, 2011 by CitizenX

[TimG]

Without a future society (world) in which to exist

The trouble is the only scientists saying that society will not exist are a few alarmist crackpots. The overwhelming scientific consensus is the plant will be slightly hotter (3degC) and that will cause social disruptions of various forms but our society will continue on.

IOW, you are arguing a fiction. If you want to talk consensus science then stick to what the consensus science actually says instead of making up crap to suit your predetermined conclusions.

I really get the impression that you know nothing about the topic and you are simply repeating the Greenpeace propaganda. The IPCC science is a lot more complex than Greenpeace would like you to believe.

Edited August 7, 2011 by TimG

[CPCFTW]

I don't think you understand Tim. A 3degC change in the mean temperature of the earth's atmosphere will result in the polar ice caps melting and flooding all coastal cities with 400km high tsunamis. Then the earth, also known as Gaia (which is a living creature!!), will be enraged and volcanoes are bound to explode blocking out the sun for a decade with ash. This will usher in a new ice age in which glaciers will travel at 300km/hr to cover the earth and crush all puny lifeforms beneath it. Those of us who survive on this barren ice planet will be forced to harvest the crushed corpses of our loved ones (which have been compressed into oil from the pressure of the glaciers) to burn for heat. Is that what you want? I live in reality where people don't want to live like that. You live in a fantasy world where everyone is ok with burning their loved ones to survive in a post-apocalyptic world.

Edited August 7, 2011 by CPCFTW

[CitizenX]

Thank you CPCFTW, finally someone that knows what he is talking about.

[TimG]

Thank you CPCFTW, finally someone that knows what he is talking about.

You do realize that CPCFTW is mocking you and the absurd views that you seem to hold? Edited August 7, 2011 by TimG

[CitizenX]

You do realize that CPCFTW is mocking you and the absurd views that you seem to hold?

Yes I do, that was a sarcastic smile.. you really are slow aren't you. The short bus just added one more.

Edited August 7, 2011 by CitizenX