Economic Cases for Climate Change Mitigation

[LinkSoul60]

15 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

This speaks to your subjective values, which I share. But the purpose Here is to find objective measures that could convince others.

If I objectively look at the ongoing and vast investments around the world in cleaner and/or renewable energy, could I arrive at the subjective opinion that the investments are justified, or is that an objective opinion? 

[Nationalist]

31 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Your argument of cost is with the companies investing in clean energy, not the 'climate deniers'.  Corporate investments are ongoing and all towards cleaner and/or renewable energy. That's not going to stop.  Look no further than the Mag 7 and their recent investments in energy to support data centres, which you're paying for in some fashion when you pay your gas or electricity bills and/or buy their products or services.

https://www.renewableinstitute.org/google-launches-20-billion-renewable-energy-initiative-to-fuel-ai-advancements/

Google have revealed a partnership with renewable energy developer Intersect Power and the investment fund TPG Rise Climate to generate sufficient renewable energy to power multiple gigawatt-scale data centres. The overall investment in renewable energy is estimated at $20 billion, with Intersect already funding the first project.

 

And good for them. Really.

I'm also sure that the data centers are connected to the general grid for reliability's sake. 

I already pay for ip services. I do not expect that cost to rise.

 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, LinkSoul60 said:

If I objectively look at the ongoing and vast investments around the world in cleaner and/or renewable energy, could I arrive at the subjective opinion that the investments are justified, or is that an objective opinion? 

You can ask someone else that one.  I can't say how they think.

Maybe they think we're fools.

[LinkSoul60]

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You can ask someone else that one.  I can't say how they think.

Maybe they think we're fools.

There is an analogy of talking to a brick wall that applies here.  I'll stay away from that....

[herbie]

I don't know how you can convince people who simply refuse to learn, will not look beyond their wallet today or a week from now.

You can't even reason with them on physics and engineering grounds of efficiency. Electricity is the most effective use of power and incredible advances have been made in how to use it, how to distribute it and how to produce it. Look at ancient mechanical computers to the first electrical ones to your first 350-500 watt PC to the iPhone you hold in your hand. To my entire home lit by the same power as 3 100 watt incandescent bulbs. To Neil DeGrasse pointing out it is available right there on your wall and can now be produced locally by anyone.

Look at hydrogen, the most abundant element in the universe and the claim being pushed that it's too expensive, the posts everyday you see how someone's 'miracle' engine that's merely burning it in a mechanical ICE engine. Implying not to invest in as it isn't profitable right now.
How do you convince others? When so many are anti-science, anti-progress and actively pushing back?

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

 .

How do you convince others? 

Maybe we can't.

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Maybe we can't.

And maybe...just maybe...an honest discussion would suffice?

You know...sans all the hyperbole and wild assumptions...

Fossil fuels are the base of the global economy. Deal with the issue with the respect it deserves, instead of sh1tting on it at every turn.

We can work on different sources and use what we have at the same time.

At least I can...

[herbie]

Some people listen to Mom and put on a mitt before picking up a hot fry pan. Those are the ones to target.
The ones that just won't are beyond salvation.

[Nationalist]

27 minutes ago, herbie said:

Some people listen to Mom and put on a mitt before picking up a hot fry pan. Those are the ones to target.
The ones that just won't are beyond salvation.

Et voila @Michael Hardner.

Climate change is a religion for way too many people. As if they are addicted to telling others what to think and how.

Mitigation be damned. 

Discussion be damned. 

The conclusion is all. Fall in line or fck you. Do not, under any circumstances, try to derail the train. No new direction can be brooked.

Mike if you really wanna explore the mitigation efforts and propose refinements that make sense...it aint-a-gonna happen on a public thread.

Most simply blow-up when they see alternatives to "the doctrine".

[Michael Hardner]

11 hours ago, Nationalist said:

 

Mike if you really wanna explore the mitigation efforts and propose refinements that make sense...it aint-a-gonna happen on a public thread.

 

I'm actually exploring how people on here think about it. 

Too often when you ask for reasons, or go deeper, people will just come on and state their opinion.

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm actually exploring how people on here think about it. 

Too often when you ask for reasons, or go deeper, people will just come on and state their opinion.

Well you see the results.

No rational discussion is permitted. Hell they'll start dumping on you if you pursue this further.

[herbie]

There's the case of the guys who make a PHEV semi truck in Canada, that runs many km on battery then the diesel motor kicks in. It runs electric motors like a locomotive and can even use biodiesel fuel.

It was tested in central BC and moved to Alberta to set up factory production but is currently halted due to outdated CDN truck regulations.

Prime example of the things Carney promised to fix. Get with it!
 

[I am Groot]

On 8/26/2025 at 9:51 AM, Barquentine said:

Sound like you're looking for experts to weigh in. I am definitely not an expert on the science or economics of climate change. (Hell, I'm not an expert on anything.)

But the climate trend is obvious, the effects will be huge, and mitigation is absolutely required.

The effects will be large, depending on the validity of the models and which model you choose. But they will be most impactful at the equator, and much less so where we live. In fact, the problems will be largely offset by the benefits. Especially if we don't destroy our economy first in futile pursuit of 'net zero' and instead use that money to forecast likely negative impacts and then take remediation efforts in advance (ie, flood control, stronger building codes, etc).

[eyeball]

On 8/26/2025 at 6:51 AM, Barquentine said:

I wonder what the insurance sector will do about it. They wield huge power to affect change.

In my experience they'll just jack up premiums and deductibles.

[Barquentine]

20 hours ago, eyeball said:

In my experience they'll just jack up premiums and deductibles

I was thinking they might demand changes to building codes, refuse to insure flood, fire, tornado areas, or businesses that don't put in climate policies....

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Barquentine said:

I was thinking they might demand changes to building codes, refuse to insure flood, fire, tornado areas, or businesses that don't put in climate policies....

They do to some extent I think but we've certainly reached a point where the increasing costs of climate change are upon us despite all the denial that still surrounds it.