TimG Posted January 11, 2016 Report Share Posted January 11, 2016 (edited) If there's no profit in producing fossil fuels for generating power then why bother producing it?Because no one has any interest in returning to a stone age existence. The only differece between between environmentalists and rational people on this point is that rational people understand that there are no real alternatives to using fossil fuels at this time. Edited January 11, 2016 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 11, 2016 Report Share Posted January 11, 2016 If there's no profit in producing fossil fuels for generating power then why bother producing it? Because fossil fuels are used for more than just generating power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted January 11, 2016 Report Share Posted January 11, 2016 We might see 3ft by 2100 which gives Florida more than enough time to build whatever shoreline defenses it needs. It makes more economic sense for the US federal government to fund such projects than it does to force people to pay more for energy that cannot provide the reliability that people demand. <forehead-palm> If you bothered to read my post, you would know that South Florida is built on porous limestone. There are no known shoreline defenses that will protect it. The water will seep under the shoreline defenses and up through the storm drains (as it does today at high tides). Note to Moderators: Should there be a requirement that people actually read a post before they respond?? BTW: Climate change will reduce the number of hurricane that hit Florida so the people living there could be better off once everything is factored in. Cite? I've read there could be more or fewer hurricanes; and that the hurricanes that do occur could be more intense. Too soon to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 11, 2016 Report Share Posted January 11, 2016 Trudeau's B.C. north coast moratorium on crude oil tanker traffic has nothing to do with shorelines for Miami Beach, South Florida, North Florida, or any other part of Florida. The coasts are very different and in different nations...please see Google Maps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted January 11, 2016 Report Share Posted January 11, 2016 Trudeau's B.C. north coast moratorium on crude oil tanker traffic has nothing to do with shorelines for Miami Beach, South Florida, North Florida, or any other part of Florida. The coasts are very different and in different nations...please see Google Maps. And yet, they're both part of the same planet. Sadly, climate change doesn't respect international boundaries. The sludge that is dug out of northern Alberta, diluted with toxic solvents, piped to the coast, shipped somewhere else for refining and then burned produces CO2 that causes the atmosphere to warm, resulting in increased ice melt in Greenland, the arctic and elsewhere. That water contributes to higher sea levels (though most of the sea level rise to date has been caused by thermal expansion) and those higher sea levels cause water to seep up through porous limestone into multi-million dollar estates in Miami Beach. Not really fair but there you have it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted January 11, 2016 Report Share Posted January 11, 2016 (edited) If you bothered to read my post, you would know that South Florida is built on porous limestone. There are no known shoreline defenses that will protect it.Well I guess people who live in Florida are screwed because there is nothing humans can do to prevent the sea from rising given the technology currently available. If I had to bet I would bet that Florida figuring out a solution is more plausible than the globe figuring out a way to stop the sea from rising. I've read there could be more or fewer hurricanes; and that the hurricanes that do occur could be more intense. Too soon to say.How the two forces will play out is TBD but it is plausible that the reduction in number of hurricanes would be seen as a net benefit even if the those that do show up are a slightly stronger. Edited January 11, 2016 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 11, 2016 Report Share Posted January 11, 2016 (edited) Florida shorelines have nothing to do with this topic....it is just far more sexier as the poster child for another topic. Canada ranks last for coastal and marine protections as a percentage of territorial/economic zone waters at 1.3%, worse than even China. http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada-ranks-last-in-marine-protection/ Edited January 11, 2016 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted January 11, 2016 Report Share Posted January 11, 2016 (edited) Florida shorelines have nothing to do with this topic....it is just far more sexier as the poster child for another topic.Yep. Typically environmentalist bait and switch. Avoid addressing the active topic and point to something completely unrelated because it makes for better PR. At least we aren't regaled with tales of sinking atolls. Edited January 11, 2016 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 Well I guess people who live in Florida are screwed because there is nothing humans can do to prevent the sea from rising given the technology currently available. If I had to bet I would bet that Florida figuring out a solution is more plausible than the globe figuring out a way to stop the sea from rising. At this point, a chunk of south Florida is screwed. However, the sooner we stop shifting the chemistry of the atmosphere, the sooner, we stop making it worse. How the two forces will play out is TBD but it is plausible that the reduction in number of hurricanes would be seen as a net benefit even if the those that do show up are a slightly stronger. Oh, yeah. Right up until one of those "slightly stronger" hurricanes scores a direct hit on a city that has "slightly more" people with a "slightly higher" sea level. It's a disaster in the making and people are just sticking their heads in the rapidly eroding Florida beach sand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 Florida shorelines have nothing to do with this topic....it is just far more sexier as the poster child for another topic. Canada ranks last for coastal and marine protections as a percentage of territorial/economic zone waters at 1.3%, worse than even China. http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada-ranks-last-in-marine-protection/ You still don't seem to get the point. Burning more fossil fuels warms the climate, melts the glaciers, boom, there goes Miami. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 Moderators, please delete the thread hijacking posts. The State of Florida has nothing to do with this thread or PM Trudeau's moratorium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 Yep. Typically environmentalist bait and switch. Avoid addressing the active topic and point to something completely unrelated because it makes for better PR. At least we aren't regaled with tales of sinking atolls. Environmentalists have no need to bait and switch, they can simply refer to scientific research. Now the naysayers, that's a different kettle of fish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 Florida shorelines have nothing to do with this topic....it is just far more sexier as the poster child for another topic. This topic is predicated on how pipelines make climate change worse and it will hit Florida hard. I wonder why you are so eager to change the subject. It's not just Florida, either. New York. Louisiana. Boston. Philadelphia. Los Angeles. Vancouver. Unless climate change adaptation includes canoes or webbed feet, it probably involves moving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) At this point, a chunk of south Florida is screwed. However, the sooner we stop shifting the chemistry of the atmosphere, the sooner, we stop making it worse.Except there is not much that can be done about that either without engaging in a mass cull of humans. Even if everyone met their Paris agreement commitments it would have a negligible effect on temperatures and other consequences of the 'shifting the chemistry of the atmosphere and the chances of everyone meeting those commitments is near zero. So adaptation will be how we deal with this issue in the end whether you like it or not. Edited January 12, 2016 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 Moderators, please delete the thread hijacking posts. The State of Florida has nothing to do with this thread or PM Trudeau's moratorium. You must be joking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 Except there is not much that can be done about that either without engaging in a mass cull of humans. Even if everyone met their Paris agreement commitments it would have a negligible effect on temperatures and other consequences of the 'shifting the chemistry of the atmosphere and the chances of everyone meeting those commitments is near zero. So adaptation will be how we deal with this issue in the end whether you like it or not. And you have evidence to back up those claims I hope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 You must be joking. Maybe he has real estate in Florida and he's hoping he can sell it before anyone notices it's going under. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 Except there is not much that can be done about that either without engaging in a mass cull of humans. Even if everyone met their Paris agreement commitments it would have a negligible effect on temperatures and other consequences of the 'shifting the chemistry of the atmosphere and the chances of everyone meeting those commitments is near zero. So adaptation will be how we deal with this issue in the end whether you like it or not. We don't need a mass cull of people, although we might get one anyway if we don't learn some humility. We need to learn how to live within the physical limits of the planet, using an accounting system that takes all factors into account. The Paris agreement is a joke. Just as the US and the USSR played chicken with nuclear weapons, the US and China are now playing chicken with CO2 emissions. The problem is that there is a huge lead time between when CO2 is released and when issues manifest themselves. It's sad to say but it might take cities being under water and massive drought to make people pay attention. But by then, we've already locked in several decades more warming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 Maybe he has real estate in Florida and he's hoping he can sell it before anyone notices it's going under. Maybe if it's up a few floors and you have a sturdy boat and get the right deal you might be OK. On second thought... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 Maybe he has real estate in Florida and he's hoping he can sell it before anyone notices it's going under.Perhaps you hold your opinions because you work for an organization that stands to benefit from a government takeover of the economy? Solar panel installer? Sustainability consultant? Electric car salesman? It would certainly explain why you are so keen to demand government intervention at any cost instead of looking at what is rational. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 I gotta say, I just can't muster any climate change fear. Earth is always changing, everyone wants to live near the ocean, well, that comes at a price. Trying to stop the ocean is futile, these politicians should accept the inevitable and be looking at ways to prepare for the water rise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 Perhaps you hold your opinions because you work for an organization that stands to benefit from a government takeover of the economy? Solar panel installer? Sustainability consultant? Electric car salesman? It would certainly explain why you are so keen to demand government intervention at any cost instead of looking at what is rational. Oh I think that's outside the forum rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 I gotta say, I just can't muster any climate change fear. Earth is always changing, everyone wants to live near the ocean, well, that comes at a price. Trying to stop the ocean is futile, these politicians should accept the inevitable and be looking at ways to prepare for the water rise. They are already preparing for the oceans to rise. New York hired an expert from Holland to show them how to build similar type flow controls the Netherlands relies on.. I guess they are hoping it's easier to build canals than to move the city. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 Perhaps you hold your opinions because you work for an organization that stands to benefit from a government takeover of the economy? Solar panel installer? Sustainability consultant? Electric car salesman? It would certainly explain why you are so keen to demand government intervention at any cost instead of looking at what is rational. You figured it out. I'm a sustainability consultant for a company that installs solar panels on electric cars. Business isn't great so I'm hoping for a government takeover. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 They are already preparing for the oceans to rise. New York hired an expert from Holland to show them how to build similar type flow controls the Netherlands relies on.. I guess they are hoping it's easier to build canals than to move the city. Exactly! So, why the panic. Build a retaining wall, canals, breakwater - whatever. And...if it is not good enough for some people....move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.