Speaking Out About Climate Change

[eyeball]

...our government can't affect climate change.

Except it can change the climate.

[Guest]

Except it can change the climate.

Well, when I say can't affect climate change I mean have a measurable, meaningful effect. I suppose if one cow held it in that would have an effect, however miniscule.

I don't know if Mr Rubio is actually a denier or not, but I do know that no individual country is going to make a difference.

[Mighty AC]

The US could make a difference, so could China. The US, China, Europe and the rest of the world, changing together, will make a serious difference. Even if you don't think carbon emissions are to be worried about, why would anyone suggest we continue to use a deadly, expensive fuel any longer than necessary? Could it be that Mr. Rubio and his party receive large sums of money from the fossil fuel industry?

[Guest]

The US, China, Europe and the rest of the world, changing together, will make a serious difference.

Yes, I suppose they could. They could also solve world hunger, and bring about world peace.

Even if you don't think carbon emissions are to be worried about, why would anyone suggest we continue to use a deadly, expensive fuel any longer than necessary? Could it be that Mr. Rubio and his party receive large sums of money from the fossil fuel industry?

I do think carbon emissions are to be worried about. I just don't think they can be reduced by any significant amount without the kind of cooperation you mention in the above quote, and I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon. So back to Mr Rubio. He's quite right about the futility of making changes that will cost jobs without making a difference to the climate.

I don't know who pays him.

Edited February 13, 2013 by bcsapper

[TimG]

Even if you don't think carbon emissions are to be worried about, why would anyone suggest we continue to use a deadly, expensive fuel any longer than necessary?

I agree - we should switch all of power sources over to fusion reactors! Except there is one problem: economically viable fusion reactors do not exist. It really makes no difference how much people *want* to stop using fossil fuels. The problem is we have no economically viable alternatives (people who claim we do simply do not understand the economics of energy production).

Could it be that Mr. Rubio and his party receive large sums of money from the fossil fuel industry?

How much money do the Dems receive from the "green" energy lobby? Do you ever stop to ask yourself if the Dem obsession with alternative energy is driven by a desire to pay off their donors? I suspect not because you naively assume that if a politician advocates policies that you agree with then they must be doing it for the "right" reasons. Edited February 13, 2013 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, I suppose they could. They could also solve world hunger, and bring about world peace.

Agreed....China and the U.S. have not changed for the very same reasons that Canada blew off the Kyoto Protocol treaty despite ratification and political high-fives back home.

Nothing meaningful and certainly not impactful is going to happen on 'climate change' until the economics make sense, no matter how much screaming we hear from the 'alarmists'. It's called a hydrocarbon economy for a reason.

Edited February 13, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[Mighty AC]

How much money do the Dems receive from the "green" energy lobby? Do you ever stop to ask yourself if the Dem obsession with alternative energy is driven by a desire to pay off their donors?

I expect all politicians to please donors. The problem is Mr. Rubio and the repubs are pushing for expanded coal production with fewer restrictions. Coal comes with very hefty health and environmental costs that society has to cover. Asking a government to create even more favourable conditions for a fuel that is deadly, expensive and unnecessary is illogical, unless of course Rubio has other motives.

Will certain companies benefit if the government chooses to create favourable conditions for clean renewable energy production? Sure, but spurring investment in favour of systems that will save lives, improve health and protect the environment seems to have more logical advantages than just campaign donations.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Mighty AC

[TimG]

Asking a government to create even more favourable conditions for a fuel that is deadly, expensive and unnecessary is illogical, unless of course Rubio has other motives.

Asking government to fund the wide spread deployment of fuel sources like wind, solar and bio-fuels which grossly expensive given the energy produced is illogical unless the politicians advocating such subsidies have ulterior motives.

Modern coal plants are extremely clean. The harm caused by CO2 is purely hypothetical at this time (i.e. a warming planet is not automatically harmful).

Edited February 13, 2013 by TimG

[Mighty AC]

Asking government to fund fuel sources like wind, solar and bio-fuels which grossly expensive given the energy produced is illogical unless the politicians advocating such subsidies have ulterior motives.[/Quote]Like clean, cheap energy, healthier citizens and cleaner environment? Coal has received subsidies for a century. It's time to shift that funding to clean, renewable energy sources that don't kill people and the planet.

Modern coal plants are extremely clean.

Modern coal plants are cleaner, but far from clean. Modern plants still produce large quantities of sulfur, nitrogen, mercury and CO2. Plus, coal is brutal to mine, creates dangerous waste and is a difficult fuel to transport. Additionally, coal is too expensive. Not only are solar prices starting to beat new coal but a study estimates that coal creates an estimated $500 Billion in annual health and environmental costs.

[TimG]

Like clean, cheap energy, healthier citizens and cleaner environment?

Sure that is the political spin - but currently available renewable technology can not possibly achieve those goals therefore there is no rational reason to support massive subsidies unless you want to pay off your friends.

Additionally, coal is too expensive. Not only are solar prices starting to beat new coal but a study estimates that coal creates an estimated $500 Billion in annual health and environmental costs.

First, studies that show renewables of any sort being cheaper than fossil fuels are politically motivated fictions that grossly under estimate the costs of renewables and over estimate the costs of fossil fuels. The proof of this is simple: if there was any merit to these arguments then people would be rushing to use renewables without subsidies. They aren't so the claims are categorically false.

Also politically driven estimates for the "environmental costs" of coal are not remotely credible because they are basically numbers pulled out of a hat to rationalize a conclusion decided in advance.

That said, if you have a problem with coal then nuclear and natural gas are economically viable replacements. Renewables are not.

Edited February 13, 2013 by TimG

[GostHacked]

It's just a clumsy way of putting it. What he meant to say was, no matter how many job-killing laws we pass, our government can't affect climate change. That's not denial, it's commom sense.

Weather modification programs have existed for over 40 years in many parts of the USA and Canada. Countries like China openly admit to weather modification. Yes we can and do alter the weather. That much is a fact.

[Guest]

Weather modification programs have existed for over 40 years in many parts of the USA and Canada. Countries like China openly admit to weather modification. Yes we can and do alter the weather. That much is a fact.

Oh, I see what you mean. Yes, we can and do do that. I don't know if it's a good idea.

I don't think Rubio was talking about that though, was he?

[waldo]

It's just a clumsy way of putting it. What he meant to say was, no matter how many job-killing laws we pass, our government can't affect climate change. That's not denial, it's commom sense.

and your described 'common sense' is... nonsense! Past MLW threads have highlighted emission reductions of various EU countries... the EU15 met it's Kyoto 'below 1990 level' target reductions... 2020 target reductions are on track (keyed to binding EU legislation),.., and an aggressive 2050 emissions reduction roadmap has been endorsed by EU leaders (toward 80-95% reductions compared to 1990 levels). Beyond the EU proper, UN COP 17 resulted in an agreement to establish a legally binding emissions reduction deal... for all countries,.. by 2015, intended to take effect in 2020.

putting aside whether this will be enough to 'stabilize' CO2 emission increases... governments can have an affect. Oh wait, are you expecting Big Oil to take the lead!

[waldo]

The problem is we have no economically viable alternatives (people who claim we do simply do not understand the economics of energy production).

do you have any new material yet?

RENEWABLE ENERGY NOW CHEAPER THAN NEW FOSSIL FUELS IN AUSTRALIA --- 7 February 2013

Australia wind beats new coal in the world’s second-largest coal exporter.

Unsubsidised renewable energy is now cheaper than electricity from new-build coal- and gas-fired power stations in Australia, according to new analysis from research firm Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

How much money do the Dems receive from the "green" energy lobby? Do you ever stop to ask yourself if the Dem obsession with alternative energy is driven by a desire to pay off their donors? I suspect not because you naively assume that if a politician advocates policies that you agree with then they must be doing it for the "right" reasons.

why do keep up this charade... put up your numbers - support your claim. It's an easy cut and paste to highlight historical and ongoing/current fossil-fuel subsidies... subsidies that overwhelmingly, in a most disproportionate manner, exceed subsidies provided to renewable energy alternatives. You've been shown this in the past... and yet... you continue to negate/ignore any reference to fossil-fuel subsidies.

[GostHacked]

Oh, I see what you mean. Yes, we can and do do that. I don't know if it's a good idea.

When we mess with the weather, we will encounter unwanted results. See Charles Hatfield one of the early 1900's most famous (or infamous) rainmakers and the incident at San Diego.

I don't think Rubio was talking about that though, was he?

Not sure, I'll go back again and re-read to see what was said.

[waldo]

Asking government to fund the wide spread deployment of fuel sources like wind, solar and bio-fuels which grossly expensive given the energy produced is illogical unless the politicians advocating such subsidies have ulterior motives.

right... again, renewable subsidies are "mice nuts" relative to the existing/historical subsidies provided to BigOil.

Modern coal plants are extremely clean.

modern coal plants? Where? What countries? What new coal plants have been built/upgraded in North America... to realize your "extremely clean" claim?

The harm caused by CO2 is purely hypothetical at this time (i.e. a warming planet is not automatically harmful).

yes, clearly... your denier view holds that none of the significant increases in number/intensity of global extreme events can be attributed, in any way, to a warming planet.

[waldo]

When we mess with the weather...

per norm, your focus/context is misplaced and miscast when measured against the 'bigger picture'.

[Guest]

and your described 'common sense' is... nonsense! Past MLW threads have highlighted emission reductions of various EU countries... the EU15 met it's Kyoto 'below 1990 level' target reductions... 2020 target reductions are on track (keyed to binding EU legislation),.., and an aggressive 2050 emissions reduction roadmap has been endorsed by EU leaders (toward 80-95% reductions compared to 1990 levels). Beyond the EU proper, UN COP 17 resulted in an agreement to establish a legally binding emissions reduction deal... for all countries,.. by 2015, intended to take effect in 2020.

putting aside whether this will be enough to 'stabilize' CO2 emission increases... governments can have an affect. Oh wait, are you expecting Big Oil to take the lead!

And your reply is... well, I'm too much of a gentleman to say.

So much so it actually proves my point.

The argument was not whether countries could do someting. We can all do something. The argument was whether or not it was worth doing, in relation to Climate Change. It's always worth taking steps to reduce pollution, whatever that pollution is, but not if it costs jobs and has no measurable affect on the parameter you are trying to change. The last time I looked, all the efforts you describe above had not had much effect on atmospheric CO2 levels. They are still rising, although I believe the rate of that rise had slowed. I'm going from memory here. If I'm wrong, I know you'll point it out.

Also, you are relying on measures that will take affect at a later date to counter rises in CO2 levels. Minds can be changed.

How is a legally binding emissions reduction deal going to be enforced in all countries? Coal use worldwide is increasing, and China is leading the charge.

This from the Suncor\Syncrude Daily Bugle:

"To the degree that affordable coal has allowed hundreds of millions of people in emerging economies to enjoy the conveniences that the industrialized world began taking for granted long ago, its proliferation is a blessing," she wrote. "Yet for a society increasingly concerned about the amount of carbon it is sending into the atmosphere, the surge in coal burning is not good news."

Actually it's from Scientific American.

[GostHacked]

per norm, your focus/context is misplaced and miscast when measured against the 'bigger picture'.

You can ignore it, but we are manipulating the weather, programs exist, legislation exists on it. Don't take my word for it, go look for it yourself. We've been experimenting with weather modification since the mid 1800s, heavy in the early 1900s, national and private programs took place from the 40s-70s, and actual ongoing weather modification programs are in place today. Sure you appear to the the CO2 expert, but you are quite ignorant of what is taking place around you.

And awesome about the bigger picture comment, we have gone through weather modification, the solar/space weather influence and many other things that could be part of this climate change, and yet you continue to narrowly focus on CO2. Who's missing the bigger picture here? You are stuck still on the micro level, zoom out to the macro and take it all in.

[TimG]

The last time I looked, all the efforts you describe above had not had much effect on atmospheric CO2 levels. They are still rising, although I believe the rate of that rise had slowed.

No - the rate of rise has accelerated. Kyoto has had absolutely no measureable effect on emissions. If anything, it may have increased emissions by accelerating the closure of relatively efficient plants in europe which were replaced by inefficient plants in asia. Many of the so called 'avoided' emissions under the carbon credit regime are scams that were only created to generate cash by selling credits.

The fact US emissions are dropping thanks to natural gas is evidence of uselessness of agreements like kyoto. CO2 emissions will drop when and only when alternatives are available that are cheaper (without taxes or subsidies) than fossil fuels.

Edited February 14, 2013 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

[waldo]

And your reply is... well, I'm too much of a gentleman to say.

So much so it actually proves my point.

The argument was not whether countries could do someting. We can all do something.

I see... you're one of those guys who shifts the 'argument' on the fly, hey? You specifically said 'government can't affect climate change'. You topped that off by stating you don't believe emissions are a concern! Wow! Is there any particular reason you favour negating, outright, any emission reduction initiatives?

[waldo]

You can ignore it, but we are manipulating the weather, programs exist, legislation exists on it. Don't take my word for it, go look for it yourself. We've been experimenting with weather modification since the mid 1800s, heavy in the early 1900s, national and private programs took place from the 40s-70s, and actual ongoing weather modification programs are in place today. Sure you appear to the the CO2 expert, but you are quite ignorant of what is taking place around you.

And awesome about the bigger picture comment, we have gone through weather modification, the solar/space weather influence and many other things that could be part of this climate change, and yet you continue to narrowly focus on CO2. Who's missing the bigger picture here? You are stuck still on the micro level, zoom out to the macro and take it all in.

don't hesitate to make a case for "weather modification" contributing to global warming/climate change. You flutter about picking the 'next one'... to you, anything other than CO2. Why is that, hey? Just a few days back you were hot for the Sun! Now it's... weather modifications! Yeesh!

[Guest]

I see... you're one of those guys who shifts the 'argument' on the fly, hey? You specifically said 'government can't affect climate change'. You topped that off by stating you don't believe emissions are a concern! Wow! Is there any particular reason you favour negating, outright, any emission reduction initiatives?

I think you're too literal. We could all walk off a cliff. When any CO2 from our decomposing bodies had peaked and started to come down, we would have had an effect. We're not going to though. I did not shift my argument in any way, and I'd be happy to explain myself in areas where you think I did.

I believe I actually said I was concerned about emissions. I could check, and post the quote, or you could just go back and read it again.

Edited February 14, 2013 by bcsapper

[GostHacked]

don't hesitate to make a case for "weather modification" contributing to global warming/climate change. You flutter about picking the 'next one'... to you, anything other than CO2. Why is that, hey? Just a few days back you were hot for the Sun! Now it's... weather modifications! Yeesh!

Its a little of this and a little of that, and some of this and other stuff we dont know. It's all CO2 and nothing BUT CO2? You're thinking too small here.