Green new deal equals magical thinking

[billvon 2,400]

On 3/31/2019 at 6:15 AM, brenthutch said:

Yes we can agree with that.  Some folks think we are going to run out of fossil fuels like someone flipping a switch, we won't.

No one seriously thinks that.

Quote

 As fossil fuels (or any commodity for that matter) become more scarce their price will rise.  As that happens other energy sources begin to look more attractive, effecting a smooth transition driven by economics not some top-down cram down.

If we wait long enough, the transition will be anything but smooth.  The rich nations will start making the transition.  The poorer nations will realize their only hope is war.  That's why we have to start now - so that when oil prices climb into the stratosphere, those poorer nations have some sort of hope that they can survive.

[Coreece 190]

2 hours ago, normiss said:

Obama protections restored

"Obama stopped exploration in areas important to the walrus"

Won't somebody please think of the oysters!

[DJL 232]

48 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Won't somebody please think of the oysters!

Damn straight!  I'm restoring an oyster patch off the shore of a friend's property on the Chesapeake.  It involves mostly eating oysters and dumping the shells in the water while we drink cocktails on floating chairs.

[normiss 622]

5 minutes ago, DJL said:

Damn straight!  I'm restoring an oyster patch off the shore of a friend's property on the Chesapeake.  It involves mostly eating oysters and dumping the shells in the water while we drink cocktails on floating chairs.

Hopefully you'll never have to have a side serving of heavy crude to go with that.

[gowlerk 1,912]

On 3/30/2019 at 9:21 PM, brenthutch said:

Again, you are talking of something that MIGHT (or might not) happen in the future.

Insurance companies are dealing with the planning for the future right now. As good capitalists they are staying ahead of the curve. They are well above the phony "debate" over what is clearly coming down the pipe. They can not and will not bury their heads in the sand and pretend that all will be just fine like deniers do. If they did they would be fired and replaced because money talks and bullshit walks.

http://www.brinknews.com/climate-change-has-claimed-its-biggest-corporate-victim-now-banks-are-on-alert/?utm_source=BRINK+Subscribers&utm_campaign=a451f598cc-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_04_01_09_18&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c3639d7c98-a451f598cc-110426289

[kallend 1,623]

Meanwile, in Norway:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/in-norway-electric-cars-outsell-traditional-ones-for-the-first-time-2019-04-01

Electric cars grab more than 50% of the market.

[brenthutch 383]

On 4/2/2019 at 8:48 AM, kallend said:

Meanwile, in Norway:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/in-norway-electric-cars-outsell-traditional-ones-for-the-first-time-2019-04-01

Electric cars grab more than 50% of the market.

Meanwhile in the US, electric cars are less than 2% of the market.

[billvon 2,400]

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Meanwhile in the US, electric cars are less than 2% of the market.

Yep, and 7% in California, which typically leads in such trends. 

I can remember when the idea of EV's being even 1% of the US car market was considered naive, magical thinking.

[brenthutch 383]

On 4/2/2019 at 7:51 AM, gowlerk said:

Insurance companies are dealing with the planning for the future right now. As good capitalists they are staying ahead of the curve. They are well above the phony "debate" over what is clearly coming down the pipe. They can not and will not bury their heads in the sand and pretend that all will be just fine like deniers do. If they did they would be fired and replaced because money talks and bullshit walks.

http://www.brinknews.com/climate-change-has-claimed-its-biggest-corporate-victim-now-banks-are-on-alert/?utm_source=BRINK+Subscribers&utm_campaign=a451f598cc-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_04_01_09_18&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c3639d7c98-a451f598cc-110426289

You have got to be kidding me.  Insurance companies LOVE climate alarmism!  "We have to raise your rates and cut your coverage because uh.....climate change, yeah yeah that's the ticket, climate change."

[brenthutch 383]

17 minutes ago, billvon said:

Yep, and 7% in California, which typically leads in such trends. 

I can remember when the idea of EV's being even 1% of the US car market was considered naive, magical thinking.

Now it has skyrocketed to 1.74% as the rest of the country is buying big pickup trucks and SUVs.

Edited April 3, 2019 by brenthutch

[billvon 2,400]

7 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Now it has skyrocketed to 1.74% and the rest of the country is buying big pickup trucks and SUVs.

Thus hastening the day when Americans will no longer have the choice.  

But that's not your problem, eh?  

[brenthutch 383]

12 minutes ago, billvon said:

Thus hastening the day when Americans will no longer have the choice.  

But that's not your problem, eh?  

Electric vehicles are the transportation of the future.....and always will be.  In all seriousness, I have nothing against EVs per se.  I just don't think they should be subsidized by the federal government.  They should also pay a road usage fee since they use the roads but don't contribute to the maintenance via gas taxs.

Edited April 3, 2019 by brenthutch

[billvon 2,400]

Just now, brenthutch said:

Electric vehicles are the transportation of the future.....and always will be.

Well, except for the three million people worldwide who are driving them.

Heck, last Dec I donated my first EV to charity (a 2011 Leaf.)  So now there's somebody driving a cheap used Leaf somewhere.

[gowlerk 1,912]

57 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

You have got to be kidding me.  Insurance companies LOVE climate alarmism!  "We have to raise your rates and cut your coverage because uh.....climate change, yeah yeah that's the ticket, climate change."

Wait a minute now. I thought you were a capitalist free market believer. Now you are pushing the idea that the free market doesn't work and that insurance companies do pricing by some kind of magical thinking? Like I said, money talks, bullshit walks.

[brenthutch 383]

Free market capitalism requires a voluntary exchange between parties.  If insurance companies can convince consumers to pay more because of climate change, well that is just marketing genius.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

25 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Free market capitalism requires a voluntary exchange between parties. 

Hi Brent,

It has been a number of years since I last looked into this; but, in Oregon there are options should one not want to buy automobile insurance.  'Free market' and all of that.

Jerry Baumchen

[gowlerk 1,912]

44 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

If insurance companies can convince consumers to pay more because of climate change, well that is just marketing genius.

The article is not really about consumer level insurance and investment. It's about professionals dealing with risk. It's about how the PG&E bankruptcy is related to climate change. It is about how major banks are developing strategies for dealing with the major increase in risk level caused by the CO2 levels that you consistently dismiss as "alamist". In other words, these are professionals with skin in the game. Not even a little bit influenced by the talk show deniers that you often echo.

Edited April 3, 2019 by gowlerk

[gowlerk 1,912]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

They should also pay a road usage fee since they use the roads but don't contribute to the maintenance via gas taxs.

Governments subsidize the transportation system in many ways. But I agree, electric vehicles will need to pay an equivalent road use fee sooner or later.

[billvon 2,400]

25 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

The article is not really about consumer level insurance and investment. It's about professionals dealing with risk. It's about how the PG&E bankruptcy is related to climate change. It is about how major banks are developing strategies for dealing with the major increase in risk level caused by the CO2 levels that you consistently dismiss as "alamist". In other words, these are professionals with skin in the game. Not even a little bit influenced by the talk show deniers that you often echo.

Right.  It's the difference between professionals planning for the future with the best tools they have, and companies trying to manipulate people into voting for their best interests.  And from what we have seen here, people are pretty easily manipulated by paid deniers.  Remember Willie Soon?

[billvon 2,400]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Electric vehicles are the transportation of the future.....and always will be.  In all seriousness, I have nothing against EVs per se.  I just don't think they should be subsidized by the federal government.  They should also pay a road usage fee since they use the roads but don't contribute to the maintenance via gas taxs.

More than 50% of road maintenance is paid for by general taxes - income, property, sales etc etc.  So EV owners are indeed contributing to road maintenance via their taxes.

However, I'd be all for a road tax based on vehicle weight rather than on gallons of gas used, since vehicle weight is the #1 factor in vehicle road damage and wear.

[brenthutch 383]

It is worth noting that the area around the town of Paradise was not even in a mild state of drought, in fact the 2016-2017 rainy season was the wettest in 100 years, nor was experiencing unusually high temperatures. The fire was caused by power lines not climate change.

[billvon 2,400]

23 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

It is worth noting that the area around the town of Paradise was not even in a mild state of drought, in fact the 2016-2017 rainy season was the wettest in 100 years, nor was experiencing unusually high temperatures. The fire was caused by power lines not climate change.

Wow, you are like a magnet for "denier data."

Rainfall records for Sacramento (closest large city) - 

Wettest year ever - 1982-83: 36.6" total

4th wettest year ever - 2016-2017 32.59"

That 4th wettest year ever meant a lot of rain in the spring, leading to a lot of ground cover/trees/grasses (known as "fuel" to forestry fire experts.)  A very dry fall led to combustible conditions.  On Nov 6th, after the NWS issued a red-flag warning for the area (meaning dry/hot/high winds) PG+E notified communities that they might have to shut down power to prevent powerlines from sparking and causing fires.  On Nov 7th, PG+E notified Betsy Ann Cowley that they would have to get on her property to get access to powerlines because they were, in fact, causing sparks.  The winds made the lines sway; the high temperatures and high power demand caused the lines to heat up and droop, allowing them to get closer to each other and arc.

Then, on Nov 8th, those sparks lit off the Camp fire.

So what caused the fire?  Was it powerlines?  Was it the heat that caused the lines to droop?  Was it the winds that caused them to sway?  Was it the wet spring/dry fall that meant lots of fuel?  Was it PG+E deciding to not depower the lines?  Yes.  Take away any one of those factors and you would likely not have had the fire.

And we are going to see more and more of this.  Climate change does not directly cause droughts; it just makes them worse.  Climate change does not directly cause storms; it just lets them carry more water to dump.  Climate change does not directly cause fires; it just makes them more likely.

 

[gowlerk 1,912]

27 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

It is worth noting that the area around the town of Paradise was not even in a mild state of drought, in fact the 2016-2017 rainy season was the wettest in 100 years, nor was experiencing unusually high temperatures. The fire was caused by power lines not climate change.

That is an interesting anecdote about one event. However, in the risk business they are preparing for the effects of climate change despite it. As always, money still talks, bullshit still walks. And climate change denial is still bullshit. We could talk about what is a reasonable plan for dealing with it though. I mean, we could mostly agree that the GND is mostly just highfalutin talk.

[brenthutch 383]

I said wettest rainy season, not year.  Also 75 degrees is unusually warm???  Winds 2-12, unusually high???

Edited April 3, 2019 by brenthutch

[billvon 2,400]

5 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I said wettest rainy season, not year.  Also 75 degrees is unusually warm???  Winds 2-12, unusually high???

Red Flag warnings are issued for local winds much higher than that.  And . . . that warning turned out to be spot on.