Green new deal equals magical thinking

[JoeWeber 2,299]

On 8/31/2019 at 6:51 PM, brenthutch said:

The arc of the man-made global warming debate is long, but it bends towards me being right.  Time is, and always has, been on my side.

Polar bears? Still here. Peak oil? Nowhere in sight.  Ice free artic? Nope. Planet ravaged by hurricanes, wildfires, droughts, and floods?  Sorry try again. 

 Brent, I am not on your page but I think I see where you are coming from, which is: global warming is an underway natural cycle and AGW may or may not play a significant role. Maybe or maybe not the current warming cycle will end in disaster but in the meantime the majority of the worlds population of our generation, and probably the next two or three, will benefit from the effects. After that who knows? Maybe a volcano darkens the skies or maybe we had the math wrong or whatever. But for certain hobbling ourselves economically today while we play a guessing game is stupid. Is that close?

 

[brenthutch 383]

It's not close, it is spot on!

I would just add that if it does manifest itself negatively, in a few generations from now, a more wealthy and developed world will be able to handle it much better than an economically crippled one.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

It's not close, it is spot on!

I would just add that if it does manifest itself negatively, in a few generations from now, a more wealthy and developed world will be able to handle it much better than an economically crippled one.

You said this:  "If you guys really think otherwise I am throwing my intellectual pearls before swine."

Now I'll be the last to argue I'm not a swine but I think your pearls are simply the baubles of your own beliefs. It's completely fair for you to claim that if, as far as you are concerned, the accelerated arc of inexorable time leaves some people fucked earlier then mother nature intended, well so be it. It was coming anyway and it's also not our problem today. But that does not make it gospel or a universal truth. Reality, if I can adopt your claim, is that that CO2 levels are spiking up coterminous with the advance of human civilization. You choose to observe that fact and act cavalierly, my interpretation. With time on my side, I choose to act cautiously. That said, I am thinking about how you see it.

 

[brenthutch 383]

Thank you Joe for your thoughtful words.  I must admit that I do mix some (sometimes too much) pot stirring to the conversation.  My basic points are:

The use of fossil fuels and the and the resulting CO2  have been more beneficial than harmful.  This is undeniable.  Are there downsides?  Yes, without a doubt, but on balance they are clearly beneficial.

CO2 is not the earths thermostat.  Global temps have always risen and dropped independent of CO2 levels. (That is not an opinion that is a fact)

During the course of human civilization sea levels and temperatures have been both higher and lower (again a fact)

Economic development, NOT carbon mitigation is the best way for us to protect ourselves from natural disasters. (carbon footprint and deaths from natural disasters have and inverse relationship)

There is no carbon mitigation plan that can pass a simple cost/benefit analysis (the Paris Accord while costing trillions, by its own admission, will have an immeasurable effect on global temperatures)  It is all pain and no gain.

Finally, it doesn't matter what the US does (or the rest of the Western world), CO2 will continue to rise.  Worldwide, there are currently more than 1500 coal fired powerplants being built.  Our carbon output could go to zero and it would not make a difference in global temperatures. 

[JoeWeber 2,299]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Thank you Joe for your thoughtful words.  I must admit that I do mix some (sometimes too much) pot stirring to the conversation.  My basic points are:

The use of fossil fuels and the and the resulting CO2  have been more beneficial than harmful.  This is undeniable.  Are there downsides?  Yes, without a doubt, but on balance they are clearly beneficial.

CO2 is not the earths thermostat.  Global temps have always risen and dropped independent of CO2 levels. (That is not an opinion that is a fact)

During the course of human civilization sea levels and temperatures have been both higher and lower (again a fact)

Economic development, NOT carbon mitigation is the best way for us to protect ourselves from natural disasters. (carbon footprint and deaths from natural disasters have and inverse relationship)

There is no carbon mitigation plan that can pass a simple cost/benefit analysis (the Paris Accord while costing trillions, by its own admission, will have an immeasurable effect on global temperatures)  It is all pain and no gain.

Finally, it doesn't matter what the US does (or the rest of the Western world), CO2 will continue to rise.  Worldwide, there are currently more than 1500 coal fired powerplants being built.  Our carbon output could go to zero and it would not make a difference in global temperatures. 

I completely agree that our best efforts at any thing, not only CO2 mitigation, can be made futile by actions elsewhere in the world. The good news is that coal fired power plant construction worldwide seems to be falling dramatically. The bad news is that with a stroke of a pen China can reverse that trend. Still, so far, so good. I'd also agree that economic development stores more opportunity for beneficial change in it's batteries than renewable energy batteries are ever likely to store. But I would not use less than and greater than symbols when making decisions between things good and better. Just as I like to keep my portfolio diversified even knowing there is a certain cost maybe a bit of both is smart.

Whatever the real cost of the Paris Accords might end up being, and every dollar spent isn't lost, there are other real, tangible benefits from remaining in the agreement. For one, no one likes dealing with welshers. For two, everyone needs a friend sometime. For three, in the big geopolitical scheme of things they're our peeps. Just like the Iranian Deal, maybe there are hold your nose bits and pieces that are a part of the process but that's the way of all complex deals and relationships. Better to keep the long game in mind as our adversaries do.

Edited September 7, 2019 by JoeWeber

[brenthutch 383]

49 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

I completely agree that our best efforts at any thing, not only CO2 mitigation, can be made futile by actions elsewhere in the world. The good news is that coal fired power plant construction worldwide seems to be falling dramatically.

Only in the West, the developing world is just getting started.  Take a look at what China is financing through its Belt and Road Initiative.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

7 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Only in the West, the developing world is just getting started.  Take a look at what China is financing through its Belt and Road Initiative.

Yes, China has apparently restarted construction on a number of suspended coal fired plants. But they also, apparently, reduced permitted construction from 184GW in 2015 to 5GW in 2018. Now obviously we can not trust them any more than they, or anyone else these day's, can trust us. But it's not all gloom.

[billvon 2,400]

On 9/7/2019 at 5:30 AM, brenthutch said:

CO2 is not the earths thermostat.  Global temps have always risen and dropped independent of CO2 levels. (That is not an opinion that is a fact)

It is, of course, PART of Earth's thermostat.  That is also a provable fact.

Quote

Economic development, NOT carbon mitigation is the best way for us to protect ourselves from natural disasters. (carbon footprint and deaths from natural disasters have and inverse relationship)

It is truly bizarre that so many right wingers think that these two are exclusive.  Ask any of the hundreds of thousands of renewable energy workers in the US if they'd prefer economic development or renewable energy.

Quote

There is no carbon mitigation plan that can pass a simple cost/benefit analysis

Agreed, just as there was no simple cost/benefit analysis that could justify the Montreal accord, the Apollo program, the CDC or the decision to have kids.  More comprehensive cost/benefit analyses, however, do often find value in those things.

Quote

Finally, it doesn't matter what the US does (or the rest of the Western world), CO2 will continue to rise.  Worldwide, there are currently more than 1500 coal fired powerplants being built.  Our carbon output could go to zero and it would not make a difference in global temperatures. 

It would make a difference in ten years, when that effect is felt.  And the US has traditionally been the leader in technology.  It's our job to do it first - a job that is both our heritage and our responsibility.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

On 9/7/2019 at 11:04 AM, JoeWeber said:

Yes, China has apparently restarted construction on a number of suspended coal fired plants. But they also, apparently, reduced permitted construction from 184GW in 2015 to 5GW in 2018. Now obviously we can not trust them any more than they, or anyone else these day's, can trust us. But it's not all gloom.

China is in a bit of a bind. They need electricity. But they are finding out (as we did last century) that coal is dirty. The air quality in many major Chinese cities is as bad or worse than LA in the early 70s. People are starting to get sick & die from the air. 
That's one reason China is pursuing solar (and other 'alternatives') pretty aggressively.

[DJL 232]

On 9/7/2019 at 8:30 AM, brenthutch said:

Economic development, NOT carbon mitigation is the best way for us to protect ourselves from natural disasters. (carbon footprint and deaths from natural disasters have and inverse relationship)

Economic development?  What do you think is happening in the renewables sector?

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 hour ago, DJL said:

Economic development?  What do you think is happening in the renewables sector?

I believe Brent would answer, not much. His thinking seems to be that fussing with renewables, here and now, is taking our eye off the ball. Rather we should go red hot with hydrocarbon use while the getting is good and fill up the bank accounts so, if we even need or want to, we can afford to fix the non-problems later. I don't agree, because too many things are left unaccounted for, but I can see how he gets to the position. 

[brenthutch 383]

14 hours ago, DJL said:

Economic development?  What do you think is happening in the renewables sector?

Globally, the growth of fossil fuel use is outpacing renewables.

https://jacksonlab.stanford.edu/publication/global-energy-growth-outpacing-decarbonization

[DJL 232]

51 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Globally, the growth of fossil fuel use is outpacing renewables.

https://jacksonlab.stanford.edu/publication/global-energy-growth-outpacing-decarbonization

Cool.  Again, why are you cheering against growth in an energy sector?

[brenthutch 383]

Just pointing out the reality of the current situation.  

[brenthutch 383]

This just in.

We have gone from, Global Warming to Climate Change to Climate Crisis and now, according to the NewYorker, we are in a Climate Apocalypse.  From the article,

“If you’re younger than sixty, you have a good chance of witnessing the radical destabilization of life on earth—massive crop failures, apocalyptic fires, imploding economies, epic flooding, hundreds of millions of refugees fleeing regions made uninhabitable by extreme heat or permanent drought. If you’re under thirty, you’re all but guaranteed to witness it.”

“Overwhelming numbers of human beings, including millions of government-hating Americans, need to accept high taxes and severe curtailment of their familiar life styles without revolting. They must accept the reality of climate change and have faith in the extreme measures taken to combat it”

“a·poc·a·lypse

/əˈpäkəˌlips/

noun

1. 

the complete final destruction of the world, as described in the biblical book of Revelation.“

Just an FYI for those folks who we telling me, “no one is claiming that”

Edited September 10, 2019 by brenthutch

[SkyDekker 1,123]

I see you left out the 2nd definition presented:

"2. an event involving destruction or damage on an awesome or catastrophic scale."

Oh look, that applies a lot more to this situation and doesn't support your position.....I am so incredibly surprised.

 

[brenthutch 383]

Fine, we will go with your definition.  It makes it no less amusing.

[SkyDekker 1,123]

15 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Fine, we will go with your definition.  It makes it no less amusing.

It is rather amusing. Considering the article you link to says nothing like your "quote".

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

9 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

It is rather amusing. Considering the article you link to says nothing like your "quote".

Yeah, he linked the wrong article. The one he quoted was the top one on the 'most popular' list to the right. 
And he left out a lot. There's a bit of fear-mongering (the part he quoted), but there's some other stuff that is both accurate & rather disturbing.

Quote

we’ve emitted as much atmospheric carbon in the past thirty years as we did in the previous two centuries of industrialization.

So we aren't improving anything. In fact we're getting worse. 

Personally, I think humanity is fucked. Not this year, not this decade, probably not (despite what the author of the article says) this century. 

But the damage we have done and are doing to the planet is too severe, too widespread and too lucrative to stop. Look at the Amazon. The ranchers are selling huge amounts of beef to China. They need pasture for the cattle. So they burn down the rainforest. Look up the stories. The ranchers don't think they are doing anything wrong. They need to feed their families. The Amazon is 'too big to destroy' (not an exact quote, but close). 

People will continue to deny and ignore it, for a wide variety of reasons. And, eventually, the climate will become largely uninhabitable. People (as a species) will survive. But the world will be a drastically altered place. And the world population will be a LOT less. 

[brenthutch 383]

3 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Personally, I think humanity is fucked. Not this year, not this decade, probably not (despite what the author of the article says) this century. 
 

Unless I’m forced to buy an overpriced EV and pay more for electricity, right?

[DJL 232]

14 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Unless I’m forced to buy an overpriced EV and pay more for electricity, right?

Womp womp.  I'm sorry that within your lifetime you'll probably own an EV, you'll have a choice of vehicles at vast range of prices and you'll pay less for the electricity used to power it.  Your future is bleak, why even go on.

Edit:

Here's the most current comparison I could find.  Lifetime costs of EV's are already better but you have to buy what some would call "a little bitch car" and plan in your charge time.

https://www.corporateknights.com/channels/clean-technology/faceoff-electric-vs-gas-cars-on-cost-15555966/

Edited September 11, 2019 by DJL

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

15 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Unless I’m forced to buy an overpriced EV and pay more for electricity, right?

Didn't actually read the article you quoted, did you.

The answer is 'no'. Virtually nothing we will do will change the outcome.

When you add in the folks who think that fossil fuels are plentiful enough that we can continue to burn them in unlimited amounts, the folks who think that Climate Change and AGW are a "Liberal Hoax" (or a Chinese one), the folks who say 'why should I care, it won't affect me', and the chance for meaningful change is virtually zero. 

Look at human history. Rapa Nui (Easter Island) is a stark example. But there are lots of others.

Short term survival takes precedence over long term sustainability. By the time it becomes bad enough to be seriously noticeable, it's too late.

[BIGUN 1,053]

3 hours ago, DJL said:

but you have to buy what some would call "a little bitch car" and plan in your charge time.

My "little bitch car" is almost done - it gets 40 MPH and I'd rather drive it around than the truck. This isn't mine. Just the template for my existing one. You can buy them outright for ~$7-10K. We inherited the cart and I'm buying all the parts to build it off Amazon.

https://www.southernsportz.com/Lifted-Carts/Royal-Metallic-Octane-Phantom-Club-Car-Precedent-48v-Electric-Golf-Cart.html 

[DJL 232]

6 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

My "little bitch car" is almost done - it gets 40 MPH and I'd rather drive it around than the truck. This isn't mine. Just the template for my existing one. You can buy them outright for ~$7-10K. We inherited the cart and I'm buying all the parts to build it off Amazon.

https://www.southernsportz.com/Lifted-Carts/Royal-Metallic-Octane-Phantom-Club-Car-Precedent-48v-Electric-Golf-Cart.html 

My next car will be a little bitch (hopefully Nissan Leaf) car.  For the kind of driving I do it makes financial sense in every aspect.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

36 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

it gets 40 MPH 

Hi Keith,

While I would NEVER recommend that anyone put any money into this Ponzi scheme, the latest scuttlebutt is that Elio is now working on an electric version.

https://www.eliomotors.com/

The times, they are a'changing.

Jerry Baumchen