Green new deal equals magical thinking

[brenthutch 383]

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

Colour me surprised 

By the guy who cannot spell color. ;-)

[gowlerk 1,912]

48 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

By the guy who cannot spell color. ;-)

Americans have lost some of their ability with the Queen's proper English. I think it's the multi-cultural influence from shithole countries that is destroying their educational system.

[kallend 1,623]

16 hours ago, airdvr said:

The industry that is now Climate Change is being funded in spectacular amounts.  By some estimates in the trillions of dollars. 

And the fossil fuel industries, of course, have nothing like that. </sarcasm>

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

On 5/3/2019 at 2:38 PM, airdvr said:

 ...Still I'm old enough now to remember several "world is coming to an end" scenarios that required government spending and new laws, all of which probably changed things for the better, all the while taking more of my pocket money.

Anyone remember the hole in the ozone layer?  It was so important we close it.  Of course now some CG folks say closing the hole might actually be a bad thing for global warming.  There are plenty of other examples where our good intentions actually made things worse.  But I digress...

 

Got any data on the idea that not destroying the ozone layer increased global warming? Not being snarky, genuinely curious. It's pretty counterintuitive. Ozone blocks UV, which has far less heating effect than IR, which CO2 absorbs. The big issue with the ozone layer was the large increase in UV light reaching the surface. All sorts of interesting genetic mutations, not to mention skyrocketing skin cancer rates.

 

I too, remember several significant, serious ecological/environmental issues. The CFCs destroying the ozone layer was one. We stopped using CFCs indiscriminately as a result. I think banning R-12 as a refrigerant was a bit excessive (it was the aerosol cans that were the big issue), but I understand why. 

 

I also remember the raptors basically disappearing due to DDT. Since that was banned (and a huge repopulation effort undertaken) hawks, eagles and other raptors have made an astounding comeback. From nesting pairs in the lower 48 numbering below 100 to where we are now, where I can see dozens of eagles wintering on the river near my home. 

I also remember the air pollution in major cities in the late 60s/early 70s. And the lead poisoning that was taking place just from breathing the air. Lots of things made an impact, but reducing car emissions was probably the biggest. The lead issue was taken care of because the catalytic converters couldn't run it, it would clog them up. The cost was significant, but the results were worth it (and cost savings in reduced health care for people no longer falling sick from lung diseases from the bad air more than made up for it). 

I also remember acid rain. It cost some to stop using high sulfur coal, but the idea of having fish and amphibians actually living in the lakes and rivers has a certain amount of appeal. It was only a few years ago that the last 'dead' lake was declared 'recovered'. 

I also remember when industrial plants used rivers as convenient toxic waste dumps. While I don't specifically remember the Cuyahoga river catching fire, I do remember when the Fox river in Wisconsin was pretty much dead. No fish but carp, and nothing caught was edible. No ducks because the fish were toxic, as was the water. You couldn't even swim in it.
After the mills stopped polluting the river, it came back a long way. Fish were back and were somewhat edible (there were 'caution - Don't eat this fish more than xxx and not at all if you are pregnant' signs up at the popular locations). Ducks & geese came back, eagles came back too (in part because they were actually around, in part because the river wasn't toxic). 
There was subsequently a huge clean up, where the paper mills that polluted the river in the first place were sued to pay for it (long, drawn out suit - the mills lost). That had a significant cost (to the taxpayers as well as the mills) but having a river that isn't dead is worth it IMO. 

[turtlespeed 212]

On 5/3/2019 at 6:11 PM, billvon said:

?? Right.  It was a big deal.  So we took action - the whole world (coordinated through the UN Montreal Convention) virtually stopped making CFC's and switched to alternatives.  That fixed the problem; the ozone hole is closing and will be back to normal by ~2030 in the Northern hemisphere and ~2060 in the Southern hemisphere.  If you are proposing a similar solution for climate change then we are on the same page.

So firemen set (or facilitate) most of the fires so they can get more money?  I don't think you know many firemen, then.  (or scientists.)

2060?

How can that be - catastrophe will strike in the next 12 years.

According to some on your side of the fence - its life ending and unavoidable at this point.

[wmw999 2,121]

And according to some on “your” side of the fence, there are people who believe global warming is good because they personally don’t like snow, or that the earth was formed 6000+ years ago, and fossils were out there to test our faith. 

Howzabout we focus away from the lunatic fringe

Wendy P.

[DJL 232]

On 5/3/2019 at 3:38 PM, airdvr said:

all of which probably changed things for the better, all the while taking more of my pocket money.

There are aspects of this that will certainly take money out of people's pockets.  Think about the fire on the Cuyahoga.  Yes, it costs money to not simply dump your waste into a river.   Also think about almost every commercial fishing regulation, in many of those cases we were headed towards the entire fishery collapsing.  The flip side of that is that if you're concerned with people coming into the country from 3rd world shitholes now just wait until you see what happens when a cycle or two of crop failures roll through Central America.

On 5/3/2019 at 3:38 PM, airdvr said:

Anyone remember the hole in the ozone layer?  It was so important we close it.  Of course now some CG folks say closing the hole might actually be a bad thing for global warming. 

I hear you but that's actually an example of everyone agreeing on a long term issue.  It cost people money but we solved it before it came back to harm us.

On 5/3/2019 at 3:38 PM, airdvr said:

All the while we're supposed to trust that the folks who receive this money are above the temptation of cooking the books.  Maybe...but that's not what history has shown.

Except that every knew scientist (singular human) going into the field would also have to cook the books.   There is absolutely no way for all of the global independent research in the world to be able do such a thing.

[airdvr 197]

You'll get no argument from me on any of it.  It's happening, probably for the good.

[DJL 232]

Just now, airdvr said:

You'll get no argument from me on any of it.  It's happening, probably for the good.

Ok, if you're still alive we'll see what you say when the roving hordes of climate refugees are attacking our borders.

[kallend 1,623]

17 minutes ago, airdvr said:

You'll get no argument from me on any of it.  It's happening, probably for the good.

We are losing species more rapidly now than at any time in previous recorded human history.  "PROBABLY" is absurd, no-one knows what the outcome of this will be, and it's most unlikely to be good.

[turtlespeed 212]

10 hours ago, wmw999 said:

And according to some on “your” side of the fence, there are people who believe global warming is good because they personally don’t like snow, or that the earth was formed 6000+ years ago, and fossils were out there to test our faith. 

Howzabout we focus away from the lunatic fringe

Wendy P.

Well - mainly because that lunatic fringe is part of a governing body.

An elected official.

That lunatic fringe is helping to make policy.

The question here is why are you not trying to reign the lunatic fringe in?

 

[turtlespeed 212]

54 minutes ago, DJL said:

Ok, if you're still alive we'll see what you say when the roving hordes of climate refugees are attacking our borders.

Oohh look - Lunatic fringe!!!

[gowlerk 1,912]

11 hours ago, wmw999 said:

And according to some on “your” side of the fence, there are people who believe global warming is good because they personally don’t like snow,

It will probably be mostly good in my area. Milder winters will be welcome. The growing season will be longer, and the the level of high productivity will likely shift away from Iowa and go further north. Overall Canada will do well and the midwest USA less well as it becomes hotter. But I still see it as a bad thing overall.

[turtlespeed 212]

41 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

It will probably be mostly good in my area. Milder winters will be welcome. The growing season will be longer, and the the level of high productivity will likely shift away from Iowa and go further north. Overall Canada will do well and the midwest USA less well as it becomes hotter. But I still see it as a bad thing overall.

Would it be Good or Bad if the growing season improves enough for multiple crops.

Seems like maybe it could decrease hunger and prices a bit.

[gowlerk 1,912]

Just now, turtlespeed said:

Would it be Good or Bad if the growing season improves enough for multiple crops. 

Seems like maybe it could decrease hunger and prices a bit.

We don't really know where new deserts will form. Maybe, maybe not. What the hell, let's just roll the dice then.

[turtlespeed 212]

5 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

We don't really know where new deserts will form. Maybe, maybe not. What the hell, let's just roll the dice then.

Its not like we can afford not to - and keep any semblance to the way of life we enjoy now.

You should watch the move - "The Day the Earth Stood Still" Aliens make the choice for you.

[gowlerk 1,912]

11 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Its not like we can afford not to - and keep any semblance to the way of life we enjoy now.

You should watch the move - "The Day the Earth Stood Still" Aliens make the choice for you.

We can and are moving toward emitting less GHG. We are not going to give up our lifestyles willingly. We have brains and we will use them. Aliens will not be a factor. Neither will the American right in the end.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

Well - mainly because that lunatic fringe is part of a governing body.

An elected official.

That lunatic fringe is helping to make policy.

The question here is why are you not trying to reign the lunatic fringe in?

 

I think when it comes to choosing between people who think it is a Chinese Hoax and those who want to try and tackle the problem, I will choose those looking to help.

[billvon 2,400]

52 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Its not like we can afford not to - and keep any semblance to the way of life we enjoy now.

You should watch the move - "The Day the Earth Stood Still" Aliens make the choice for you.

Of course we can afford not to.  There are now days where the California grid runs 100% on renewable energy - and is still exporting to Arizona.

The key is that we won't _always_ be able to afford to do nothing and just "roll the dice."  There will come a time where oil gets prohibitively expensive to extract.  On that day, you better pray we spent that cheap oil getting ready to maintain our "way of life" without it.  (If not, perhaps there will be jobs in California for you . . .)

[billvon 2,400]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

Would it be Good or Bad if the growing season improves enough for multiple crops.

Seems like maybe it could decrease hunger and prices a bit.

It will probably be good for Canada, bad for the US overall.

[billvon 2,400]

2 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Well - mainly because that lunatic fringe is part of a governing body.

An elected official.

That lunatic fringe is helping to make policy.

The question here is why are you not trying to reign the lunatic fringe in?

 

IIRC Wendy has stated she doesn't think Trump is a very good president.  We are doing what we can.

[turtlespeed 212]

30 minutes ago, billvon said:

IIRC Wendy has stated she doesn't think Trump is a very good president.  We are doing what we can.

And what are you doing about AOC?

[billvon 2,400]

1 minute ago, turtlespeed said:

And what are you doing about AOC?

?? Nothing.  She's a good influence overall.  People are talking about how they would change the GND and coming up with alternatives - and that is a very good thing.

[turtlespeed 212]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

?? Nothing.  She's a good influence overall.  People are talking about how they would change the GND and coming up with alternatives - and that is a very good thing.

That goes against ignoring the lunatic fringe then.

[DJL 232]

4 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

That goes against ignoring the lunatic fringe then.

Are we trying to figure out who's lunatic fringe has the biggest penis?