|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 28 2013 06:52 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +If there's economic power in environmentalism, wouldn't businesses pick up on that and make money hand over fist? No, because the technology simply isn't good enough yet. There's plenty of reasons. First of all, we are rather entrenched in the system we have now. Why would companies change when what they're doing now is making lots of money now? It's not like transferring to sustainable energy is going to be cheap. That's part of the problem with the private industry, is that it's vulnerable to that kind of short-sightedness. The fact is that we've invested a shit ton of money into never ever ever switching out of fossil fuels. Which is a big reason why we have such resistance to do so. Show nested quote +Why would developing country A spend $X on a "clean energy" when they can spend a fraction of that on a coal plant? China sure as shit prefers coal, as do the other developing countries. So China would switch to more environmental policies for pretty much the exact same reasons we would. I have no idea why you think their interests are significantly different than ours in this respect. But why would China switch when America is still going to pollute and such? It's a Prisoner's Dilemma. Show nested quote +This is still the big lie of green politics. Green energy and environmentalism is not boosting our economy, nor will it for the foreseeable future. The technology isn't there yet. Have we already forgotten about Solyndra and all he other bankrupt green companies?
There is no viable replacement for fossil fuels. None of the alternatives is as plentiful, cheap, efficient, or versatile. Oh my god, will you shut up about solyndra? Jesus fucking christ. All of environmentalism is not debunked by the word "solyndra". Bullshit simplistic thinking. We're not going to get a viable replacement for fossil fuels without goddamn trying. And fossil fuels are an assortment of technologies, so you're going to have an assortment of technologies to replace them. Fossil fuels are not the be-all, end-all of energy, and it's honestly pretty silly to pretend that it is.
He didn't say there wouldn't ever be a replacement, but there there currently was not a viable one. Government can try to help by investing in research, but that won't make it work in the marketplace.
|
On August 28 2013 06:52 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +If there's economic power in environmentalism, wouldn't businesses pick up on that and make money hand over fist? No, because the technology simply isn't good enough yet. There's plenty of reasons. First of all, we are rather entrenched in the system we have now. Why would companies change when what they're doing now is making lots of money now? It's not like transferring to sustainable energy is going to be cheap. That's part of the problem with the private industry, is that it's vulnerable to that kind of short-sightedness. The fact is that we've invested a shit ton of money into never ever ever switching out of fossil fuels. Which is a big reason why we have such resistance to do so.
What is the alternative to fossil fuels? Here's a hint:
+ Show Spoiler +THERE IS NONE THAT CAN DO EVERYTHING THAT FOSSIL FUELS DOES AT A COMPARABLE PRICE.
So China would switch to more environmental policies for pretty much the exact same reasons we would. I have no idea why you think their interests are significantly different than ours in this respect.
But why would China switch when America is still going to pollute and such? It's a Prisoner's Dilemma.
No, China wouldn't switch more environmental policies. How do I know that? Because they haven't. Compared to us, they basically have no environmental regulation. They clearly have other priorities (cheap economic development).
Show nested quote +This is still the big lie of green politics. Green energy and environmentalism is not boosting our economy, nor will it for the foreseeable future. The technology isn't there yet. Have we already forgotten about Solyndra and all he other bankrupt green companies?
There is no viable replacement for fossil fuels. None of the alternatives is as plentiful, cheap, efficient, or versatile. Oh my god, will you shut up about solyndra? Jesus fucking christ. All of environmentalism is not debunked by the word "solyndra". Bullshit simplistic thinking. We're not going to get a viable replacement for fossil fuels without goddamn trying. And fossil fuels are an assortment of technologies, so you're going to have an assortment of technologies to replace them. Fossil fuels are not the be-all, end-all of energy, and it's honestly pretty silly to pretend that it is.
Fossil fuels are unquestionably the "be-all, end-all of energy" right now. Get back to me when "big solar panel" replaces "big oil."
|
Which is why a Solar System comes online every four minutes in the US. So much in fact that experts have pretty much concluded that the US Power Grid, the largest machine in the history of the world, will become obsolete as homes will become their own power stations snd in some cases share with the neighborhoods. The only argument is when. Hell you can actually buy solar panels for less than $1 a watt now. Add in installation some homeowners are paying the costs off in less than seven years.
That is not counting wind farms, the US has several of worlds largest farms, R&D and generation Y attitude towards fossil fuels.
|
The power demands of a typical home do not represent a wide swath of the power demands of the American economy. If it makes economic sense for a homeowner to purchase solar panels for his roof, more power to him. Experts not in the line of campaigning for green interests are not deluded to think solar and wind can replace fossil fuel burning power. I think prevailing uninformed public sentiment about green energy is pretty much the best thing it has going for it right now.
|
On August 28 2013 07:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Which is why a Solar System comes online every four minutes in the US. So much in fact that experts have pretty much concluded that the US Power Grid, the largest machine in the history of the world, will become obsolete as homes will become their own power stations snd in some cases share with the neighborhoods. The only argument is when. Hell you can actually buy solar panels for less than $1 a watt now. Add in installation some homeowners are paying the costs off in less than seven years.
That is not counting wind farms, the US has several of worlds largest farms, R&D and generation Y attitude towards fossil fuels.
Currently solar is viable only with subsidies. Within the next decade it should reach cost parity with the general grid unsubsidized. Even then I don't think solar can completely replace the grid since solar output isn't completely controllable (output varies with sunlight). For solar to be a major part of the grid it'll likely need to be cheaper than fossil fuels. Though once you're at parity a carbon tax is a much easier sell.
|
THERE IS NONE THAT CAN DO EVERYTHING THAT FOSSIL FUELS DOES AT A COMPARABLE PRICE.
A comparable price? Are you including externalities? Because I don't think you are including externalities. Especially long-term externalities.
But yea, when disaster recovery efforts and environmental damages are all socialized costs while profits are all privatized, I can see fossil fuels being cheaper.
|
On August 28 2013 06:18 xDaunt wrote:
I'm not on board with needlessly and intentionally crippling our economy. Even accepting as true the proposition that we contribute to global climate change, the US unilaterally hamstringing itself won't change anything when China, India, Russia and other major economies don't give two fucks.
and so your conclusion is stick your head in the sand etc etc as you were saying. and then you pretend to care about future generations "saddled with debt" and so on.
On August 28 2013 07:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Currently solar is viable only with subsidies. .
so is fossil fuel. our entire involvement in the middle east is a fossil fuel subsidy. we also subsidize it with our lung cancer and asthma and etc
you guys think you are economic rationalists but actually you're just crooks stealing from the future. you don't think about the real world, you think about numbers on your spreadsheet and think they're the "real world" because you are too afraid to contemplate any real change. this is how busyness school teaches you to think, so you can stay nice and safe in the simulacrum.
|
On August 28 2013 07:57 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +THERE IS NONE THAT CAN DO EVERYTHING THAT FOSSIL FUELS DOES AT A COMPARABLE PRICE. A comparable price? Are you including externalities? Because I don't think you are including externalities. Especially long-term externalities. But yea, when disaster recovery efforts and environmental damages are all socialized costs while profits are all privatized, I can see fossil fuels being cheaper.
Well, they are taxed. A lot of solar profits aren't taxed though, so there's a bit of a tradeoff with current subsidy schemes.
I think currently if you did a carbon tax to include the externalities it would be less impactful than the current subsidies, though that would change as solar drops in price.
|
On August 28 2013 07:57 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +THERE IS NONE THAT CAN DO EVERYTHING THAT FOSSIL FUELS DOES AT A COMPARABLE PRICE. A comparable price? Are you including externalities? Because I don't think you are including externalities. Especially long-term externalities. But yea, when disaster recovery efforts and environmental damages are all socialized costs while profits are all privatized, I can see fossil fuels being cheaper.
There are potential solutions there too. Coal plants can be modified to filter out dangerous chemicals being spewed into the air, and as for carbon dioxide, there are many geo-engineering solutions being proposed. I feel like if the world actually focused on developing machines that would suck CO2 out of the air we might actually postpone or prevent the incoming climate catastrophe
|
On August 28 2013 08:17 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 06:18 xDaunt wrote:
I'm not on board with needlessly and intentionally crippling our economy. Even accepting as true the proposition that we contribute to global climate change, the US unilaterally hamstringing itself won't change anything when China, India, Russia and other major economies don't give two fucks. and so your conclusion is stick your head in the sand etc etc as you were saying. and then you pretend to care about future generations "saddled with debt" and so on. Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 07:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Currently solar is viable only with subsidies. . so is fossil fuel. our entire involvement in the middle east is a fossil fuel subsidy. we also subsidize it with our lung cancer and asthma and etc you guys think you are economic rationalists but actually you're just crooks stealing from the future. you don't think about the real world, you think about numbers on your spreadsheet and think they're the "real world". this is how busyness school teaches you to think, so you can stay nice and safe in the simulacrum.
We're in the middle east for more than just the 12% of oil we get from there.
Yes there are certainly downsides to fossil fuels, but cheaper energy has a lot of upsides too. So there is a tradeoff.
New technology (in the real world no less) is making that tradeoff less painful as time goes by.
|
On August 28 2013 07:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +So China would switch to more environmental policies for pretty much the exact same reasons we would. I have no idea why you think their interests are significantly different than ours in this respect.
But why would China switch when America is still going to pollute and such? It's a Prisoner's Dilemma. No, China wouldn't switch more environmental policies. How do I know that? Because they haven't. Compared to us, they basically have no environmental regulation. They clearly have other priorities (cheap economic development).
Environmental policies or no, in terms of co2 emissions, the US still pollutes much more per capita than China (I'm looking at this wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita for lack or a better source). What's to say the average chinese doesn't have the right to pollute as much as the average american? Heck, that's not even considering the pollution done up until this point that they didn't contribute significantly to.
|
On August 28 2013 09:02 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 07:03 xDaunt wrote:So China would switch to more environmental policies for pretty much the exact same reasons we would. I have no idea why you think their interests are significantly different than ours in this respect.
But why would China switch when America is still going to pollute and such? It's a Prisoner's Dilemma. No, China wouldn't switch more environmental policies. How do I know that? Because they haven't. Compared to us, they basically have no environmental regulation. They clearly have other priorities (cheap economic development). Environmental policies or no, in terms of co2 emissions, the US still pollutes much more per capita than China (I'm looking at this wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita for lack or a better source). What's to say the average chinese doesn't have the right to pollute as much as the average american? Heck, that's not even considering the pollution done up until this point that they didn't contribute significantly to.
I'm not saying that the Chinese don't have the right to pollute. They obviously can and will do whatever they want. All that I am saying is that the complete elimination of US CO2 emissions is basically irrelevant if every other country keeps polluting.
|
On August 28 2013 08:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
New technology (in the real world no less) is making that tradeoff less painful as time goes by.
classic american techno-messianism. "don't worry guys, god's one true Son technology is coming to save us!"
On August 28 2013 09:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 09:02 Sbrubbles wrote:On August 28 2013 07:03 xDaunt wrote:So China would switch to more environmental policies for pretty much the exact same reasons we would. I have no idea why you think their interests are significantly different than ours in this respect.
But why would China switch when America is still going to pollute and such? It's a Prisoner's Dilemma. No, China wouldn't switch more environmental policies. How do I know that? Because they haven't. Compared to us, they basically have no environmental regulation. They clearly have other priorities (cheap economic development). Environmental policies or no, in terms of co2 emissions, the US still pollutes much more per capita than China (I'm looking at this wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita for lack or a better source). What's to say the average chinese doesn't have the right to pollute as much as the average american? Heck, that's not even considering the pollution done up until this point that they didn't contribute significantly to. I'm not saying that the Chinese don't have the right to pollute. They obviously can and will do whatever they want. All that I am saying is that the complete elimination of US CO2 emissions is basically irrelevant if every other country keeps polluting.
it might help if we would SHOW UP TO THE FUCKING TREATY NEGOTIATIONS
|
On August 28 2013 09:02 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 07:03 xDaunt wrote:So China would switch to more environmental policies for pretty much the exact same reasons we would. I have no idea why you think their interests are significantly different than ours in this respect.
But why would China switch when America is still going to pollute and such? It's a Prisoner's Dilemma. No, China wouldn't switch more environmental policies. How do I know that? Because they haven't. Compared to us, they basically have no environmental regulation. They clearly have other priorities (cheap economic development). Environmental policies or no, in terms of co2 emissions, the US still pollutes much more per capita than China (I'm looking at this wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita for lack or a better source). What's to say the average chinese doesn't have the right to pollute as much as the average american? Heck, that's not even considering the pollution done up until this point that they didn't contribute significantly to.
CO2 is just the tip of the iceberg as far as China's pollution goes, it's at least as bad as the US before the EPA 
|
On August 28 2013 09:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 09:02 Sbrubbles wrote:On August 28 2013 07:03 xDaunt wrote:So China would switch to more environmental policies for pretty much the exact same reasons we would. I have no idea why you think their interests are significantly different than ours in this respect.
But why would China switch when America is still going to pollute and such? It's a Prisoner's Dilemma. No, China wouldn't switch more environmental policies. How do I know that? Because they haven't. Compared to us, they basically have no environmental regulation. They clearly have other priorities (cheap economic development). Environmental policies or no, in terms of co2 emissions, the US still pollutes much more per capita than China (I'm looking at this wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita for lack or a better source). What's to say the average chinese doesn't have the right to pollute as much as the average american? Heck, that's not even considering the pollution done up until this point that they didn't contribute significantly to. CO2 is just the tip of the iceberg as far as China's pollution goes, it's at least as bad as the US before the EPA
Wow, giving a lot of credit to the Chinese right there. It's a lot worse than the U.S. has ever been. Although, there seems to be a huge initiative going down from the central government to clean things up.
|
On August 28 2013 09:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 09:02 Sbrubbles wrote:On August 28 2013 07:03 xDaunt wrote:So China would switch to more environmental policies for pretty much the exact same reasons we would. I have no idea why you think their interests are significantly different than ours in this respect.
But why would China switch when America is still going to pollute and such? It's a Prisoner's Dilemma. No, China wouldn't switch more environmental policies. How do I know that? Because they haven't. Compared to us, they basically have no environmental regulation. They clearly have other priorities (cheap economic development). Environmental policies or no, in terms of co2 emissions, the US still pollutes much more per capita than China (I'm looking at this wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita for lack or a better source). What's to say the average chinese doesn't have the right to pollute as much as the average american? Heck, that's not even considering the pollution done up until this point that they didn't contribute significantly to. CO2 is just the tip of the iceberg as far as China's pollution goes, it's at least as bad as the US before the EPA
Not even close. China has entire rivers that are no longer safe for drinking, let alone safe for wildlife. Vast amounts of desertification are starting to occur, not to mention farmers are having to resort to pollinating their own crops as all the bees have disappeared. Not to mention Pollution that is infamous for blocking out the sun for days on end.
|
On August 28 2013 09:34 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 08:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
New technology (in the real world no less) is making that tradeoff less painful as time goes by. classic american techno-messianism. "don't worry guys, god's one true Son technology is coming to save us!"
Cost per watt for PV has been falling quickly and it's expected to keep falling. I don't know what's so mystic about that.
On August 28 2013 09:44 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 09:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 28 2013 09:02 Sbrubbles wrote:On August 28 2013 07:03 xDaunt wrote:So China would switch to more environmental policies for pretty much the exact same reasons we would. I have no idea why you think their interests are significantly different than ours in this respect.
But why would China switch when America is still going to pollute and such? It's a Prisoner's Dilemma. No, China wouldn't switch more environmental policies. How do I know that? Because they haven't. Compared to us, they basically have no environmental regulation. They clearly have other priorities (cheap economic development). Environmental policies or no, in terms of co2 emissions, the US still pollutes much more per capita than China (I'm looking at this wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita for lack or a better source). What's to say the average chinese doesn't have the right to pollute as much as the average american? Heck, that's not even considering the pollution done up until this point that they didn't contribute significantly to. CO2 is just the tip of the iceberg as far as China's pollution goes, it's at least as bad as the US before the EPA Wow, giving a lot of credit to the Chinese right there. It's a lot worse than the U.S. has ever been. Although, there seems to be a huge initiative going down from the central government to clean things up.
Is it a lot worse? I know we used to have rivers that caught on fire...
|
On August 28 2013 09:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 09:02 Sbrubbles wrote:On August 28 2013 07:03 xDaunt wrote:So China would switch to more environmental policies for pretty much the exact same reasons we would. I have no idea why you think their interests are significantly different than ours in this respect.
But why would China switch when America is still going to pollute and such? It's a Prisoner's Dilemma. No, China wouldn't switch more environmental policies. How do I know that? Because they haven't. Compared to us, they basically have no environmental regulation. They clearly have other priorities (cheap economic development). Environmental policies or no, in terms of co2 emissions, the US still pollutes much more per capita than China (I'm looking at this wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita for lack or a better source). What's to say the average chinese doesn't have the right to pollute as much as the average american? Heck, that's not even considering the pollution done up until this point that they didn't contribute significantly to. CO2 is just the tip of the iceberg as far as China's pollution goes, it's at least as bad as the US before the EPA
I agree, but I pointed out the CO2 thing because CO2 emissions is the main global pollution-related issue (and because the original quote talked about spending on clean energy instead of on coal). Other pollution issues (say, desertification), which China has plenty of, often have severe national and regional consequences but are not exactly global.
Heck, subdeveloped countries as a whole have more pollution issues than developed ones. CO2 emissions is an exception in this sense (but an obvious one, given how CO2 emissions go hand in hand with economic development).
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
looking forward to my beachfront view in 50 years.
on a more serious note, global warming means more volatile and extreme weather systems. bigger droughts, hurricanes and warmer winters. a place like the U.S. may take these as inconveniences, but for places in africa and asia these are devastating changes.
yes, global warming can't be stopped by short term measures regardless of what you do. but pushing the blame around doesn't do justice to the severity of the damage already caused.
|
On August 28 2013 09:34 sam!zdat wrote:
it might help if we would SHOW UP TO THE FUCKING TREATY NEGOTIATIONS
I'd only show up to leave those hippies a flaming bag of poo.
In all seriousness, though, it's pointless for the US to show up when countries like China and India won't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
