|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On August 24 2013 21:43 TzTz wrote:
Plants use CO2, if the levels rise, plants will grow more rapidly and reduce them again. Plants are so successful, that they pretty much starved the planet of CO2 (0,03% from what was much larger in the beginning). Also there's no rise in temperature in the last 10 years... But ofc there's a lot of money in claiming that and you need to control the sheep somehow
Plants are good at removing CO2 from the atmosphere but it had reached an equilibrium before the industrial revolution. The extra CO2 produced since then has shifted that equilibrium higher. Plants aren't capable of shifting it back unless a lot more are planted and deforestation stops and even then it would take a long time. As for there being no warming in the last 10 years its just completely wrong.
![[image loading]](http://static.berkeleyearth.org/img/decadal-comparison-small.png)
source
|
On August 24 2013 21:53 legor wrote:Show nested quote +For example - considering that the standard of living has generally improved over 100 years, then slowing down the climate change a bit might mean that people in the future can only afford one hovercar instead of four - which might ofcourse seem terrible for a future person - but the evil question would be if it is ok to murder some babies next year so future people would have sweeter non-wheels in the future.
This is just wrong. You cannot seperate the future world in one part which only has to do with income, wealth, economics and another part which has to do with humans. There is only one world and if we waste capital today it will have not only effects on the quality of life but also to the amoung of life in 100 years.
I'm not sure I understand what you were trying to say - I think might've I've successfully confused you with my inappropriately excessive hyperbole (your counterargument is not countering mine)
What I meant to say in somewhat of a less weird way is that the impact on quality of life of resources spent today might be higher, than the impact same amount would have in the future.
|
On August 24 2013 18:26 legor wrote:
2. we do not spend 1 billion to reduce the temperature by x%, but rather invest it
[...]
2. the people have 20 billion which they can either invest in new technologies to reduce the temperature or use the money to adjust to the temperature increase.
Who's "the people"? That looks to me like an incredibly naïve view of money allocation, in addition to being a complete gamble on actually being able to completely reverse the increases in CO2 levels that would have been going on over several decades AND not feeling any effects of these increases until then.
|
Please explain why my view of money allocation (I never talked about money allocation btw.) is incredible naiv. Show your work.
In addition the "gamble" that we are in the future more efficient to deal with global warming than we are, is no more an "gamble" than the idea that effects of global warming are so damaging that it is most efficient to deal with it now.
What I meant to say in somewhat of a less weird way is that the impact on quality of life of resources spent today might be higher, than the impact same amount would have in the future.
Capital (is what you mean by ressources) will be worth more in a few years. So we are not talking about "the same amount". You have to show that capital now has a higher worth than future capital with growth and technology. I have not yet seen anything convincing.
|
hi Hundisilm,
On August 24 2013 21:04 Hundisilm wrote:
I don't understand how you can make such a statement - how is being able to model seasonal variations (which is relatively easy I would assume) validate that we are able to model variations caused by other parameters? You seem to be implying that it is more difficult to model seasonal variations than long term effects caused by composition of the atmosphere - I don't understand how this can be true (perhaps you can explain a bit why you think it works that way)?
I should probably point out just in case that I think it is incorrect to state that the correct behaviour of the model in the long term can be inferred from correct seasonal behaviour by default - it is possible that this is true though depending on how the model works. So I probably would be ok with a statement that says: "The models correct behaviour in the long term can be inferred from correct seasonal behaviour because...". Or just say that it's possible to show that we can trust the long term predictions based on short term accuracy and provide some links when asked for.
perhaps it came off as too much emphasis on seasonal behaviour, that was probably too much emphasis. all that is usually inferrenced from a correct behaviour on seasonal scales is that
a) all the parameterizations that react on temperature change (and or precipitation change) behave physically senseful for a wide range of temperature scales and rates of changes. That is not so easy to be done, and most emodels have still severe deficiencies in modelling ALL effects that take place throughout a year. But especially sea ice variation, precipitation patterns, cloud behaviour + are all massively relevant fo rlongterm behaviour too, they are emergent from the basic equations of motion, and therefore you can test the model in a parameter range that is similar to the forced behaviour in the longterm.
b) sometimes you can directly falsify some parameterizations directly from observations of the seasonal cycle.
As you have correctly said, the correct behaviour on seasonal scales does not always imply correct longterm behaviour, but it is a good test to sort models out that will be wrong 
I hope that clarifies my earlier post a little bit,
W
// I will be offline for week, will be trying to answer questions if some come up in the time.
|
Well you can also argue that capital will be worth less in the future in the same way.
Alot of the technologys used today will be surpased one day in the future, and then the capital goods wich are based on these technologys will have lost a big part of their value, much like 100 year old facotorys are worthless now and basicly scrap.
Resources will become more valuable only in the way that in the future we will be able to make more goods with the same amount of resources but at the same time resources will become more abundant. most resources are basicly virtually unlimited and the only limitation is our technological knowledge wich limits the speed and efficiency with wich we can harvest them.
The fact that things can be done more efficiently in the future should not stop us from doing them now, everything will be more efficient in the future yet we build and make tons of stuff. We also need to take care of our life right now, not only in the future.
Battling the greenhouse effect has little change in the economic game, because everyone contributes to it and there is no price attached to it. Noone has to pay for it right now,nor in the future. There is no monney to be made from it because we have decided that causing greenhouse effect has no monetairy cost. It has a huge environmental cost but you wont see it show up in the profit and loss account of anny big company. If we can simply calculate that spending 600b now will safe 1 trillion worth of natural resources and extra costs for dealing with the greenhouse effect (more hurricanes, having to build higher dikes and all such things) then it would be worth it to do it right?
Unfortunaly such calculations are difficult to make for a capitalistic system, because there is not a single consumer buying "biodiversity" and "no greenhouse effect" in the stores, but that does not mean they dont have value.
Overlooking these costs is one of the bigger flaws of the capitalistic system.
|
On August 24 2013 23:49 legor wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2013 23:00 kwizach wrote:On August 24 2013 18:26 legor wrote:
2. we do not spend 1 billion to reduce the temperature by x%, but rather invest it
[...]
2. the people have 20 billion which they can either invest in new technologies to reduce the temperature or use the money to adjust to the temperature increase. Who's "the people"? That looks to me like an incredibly naïve view of money allocation, in addition to being a complete gamble on actually being able to completely reverse the increases in CO2 levels that would have been going on over several decades AND not feeling any effects of these increases until then. Please explain why my view of money allocation (I never talked about money allocation btw.) is incredible naiv. Show your work. In addition the "gamble" that we are in the future more efficient to deal with global warming than we are, is no more an "gamble" than the idea that effects of global warming are so damaging that it is most efficient to deal with it now.
You wrote that one billion used now to invest rather than to fight global warming would leave "the people" living in the future with twenty billions that they can use against global warming.
1. You didn't answer my question - who is "the people" in your scenario?
2. It's a naïve view of money allocation because absolutely nobody in the private and public sectors is currently investing money in order to have more money to spend on fighting global warming later. This means that in your scenario where global warming is not being addressed and there comes a time when something needs to be done further down the road, the money will have to come from the government at a much larger cost to everyone than the cost over time of the efforts that are being proposed today.
3. Of course it's way more of a gamble. Your scenario is not about "being more efficient to deal with global warming in the future" (nobody's denying that's going to be the case), it's about being able to completely adjust to/overturn the effects of decades of global warming added to the current temperature levels, AND not having suffered due to global warming during the said decades. It's a complete gamble, way more than enacting policies based on the scientific studies that have been done on the effects of global warming.
|
On August 24 2013 21:41 legor wrote:Show nested quote +Valid point concerning resources, but the climate "problem" is more a pollution than a resource problem. And we have never in the history of industrial civilation found a way to deal with a "commons" problem like that in a rational way, because people can always profit from pollution, but the costs are global. so lets hope in your point of view, that we will find a solution in time (even while I would argue for a healthy combination of efficient mitigation of CO2 emissions + investment to increase adaptaion capabilities in vulnerable regions. we will not "prevent" climate change anyway, we can just slow it down=)
The problem is not the pollution problem (which has be dealt with numerous times e.g. CFC ban, river pollution, nuclear waste...). The real problem is to differentiate damages caused by climate change and damages caused by "natural" developments. I read the current scientific literature a bit and at the moment it seems to me that we don't know enough to argue for any policy discussions with certainity. Nevertheless it might be a chance to get rid of very distorting economic policies and replace them with less distorting ones that benefit the enviroment. But implemented examples like the EU emission tradinge turned out terrible.
Calling the ozone layer problem and the nuclear waste problem for solved is pretty selective. Just because the problems are out of the media, they are in no way solved. The nuclear waste problem is actually still a hot potato in Germany (untill they decided to thrash nuclear energy, which will give rise to several other problems, but thats another story...) ie.
The ozone depletion seems to be slowing down. It still sucks for New Zealand and Australia and it will continue sucking for them the next several decades. That is if the problem has actually been solved! The other thing is that CFC-ban was among 43 nations of at least 200 countries and the alternatives are better but still mostly ozone depleting. The development in the rest of the world is slowing recovery! Besides, there is a significant overlap in ozone depleting gasses and greenhouse gasses. A sideeffect of reduction in some of the other greenhouse gasses besides CO2, would help ozone depletion too.
River pollution is broad, can you define it further? If it is the european rivers, it was always about actually caring enough to build waste water treatment plants... And river pollution is a local problem, not global!
The rest is a political decission.
|
On August 25 2013 02:00 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2013 23:49 legor wrote:On August 24 2013 23:00 kwizach wrote:On August 24 2013 18:26 legor wrote:
2. we do not spend 1 billion to reduce the temperature by x%, but rather invest it
[...]
2. the people have 20 billion which they can either invest in new technologies to reduce the temperature or use the money to adjust to the temperature increase. Who's "the people"? That looks to me like an incredibly naïve view of money allocation, in addition to being a complete gamble on actually being able to completely reverse the increases in CO2 levels that would have been going on over several decades AND not feeling any effects of these increases until then. Please explain why my view of money allocation (I never talked about money allocation btw.) is incredible naiv. Show your work. In addition the "gamble" that we are in the future more efficient to deal with global warming than we are, is no more an "gamble" than the idea that effects of global warming are so damaging that it is most efficient to deal with it now. You wrote that one billion used now to invest rather than to fight global warming would leave "the people" living in the future with twenty billions that they can use against global warming. 1. You didn't answer my question - who is "the people" in your scenario? 2. It's a naïve view of money allocation because absolutely nobody in the private and public sectors is currently investing money in order to have more money to spend on fighting global warming later. This means that in your scenario where global warming is not being addressed and there comes a time when something needs to be done further down the road, the money will have to come from the government at a much larger cost to everyone than the cost over time of the efforts that are being proposed today. 3. Of course it's way more of a gamble. Your scenario is not about "being more efficient to deal with global warming in the future" (nobody's denying that's going to be the case), it's about being able to completely adjust to/overturn the effects of decades of global warming added to the current temperature levels, AND not having suffered due to global warming during the said decades. It's a complete gamble, way more than enacting policies based on the scientific studies that have been done on the effects of global warming.
1. People who live in 100 years? Humans, maybe robots by that time.
2. Investing means spending money with the expectations of some returns. At the very moment no one invests, because the expected returns are too low. Rather invest it in useful stuff.
3. No. Actually it is more the other way around. The amount of negative climate effects must gigantic and with a high enough probability to to negate the benefits we could accumulate if we invest the economy and technology. If you must mention some mysterious scientific studies that show this, show the work.
Calling the ozone layer problem and the nuclear waste problem for solved is pretty selective. Just because the problems are out of the media, they are in no way solved. The nuclear waste problem is actually still a hot potato in Germany (untill they decided to thrash nuclear energy, which will give rise to several other problems, but thats another story...) ie.
The ozone depletion seems to be slowing down. It still sucks for New Zealand and Australia and it will continue sucking for them the next several decades. That is if the problem has actually been solved! The other thing is that CFC-ban was among 43 nations of at least 200 countries and the alternatives are better but still mostly ozone depleting. The development in the rest of the world is slowing recovery! Besides, there is a significant overlap in ozone depleting gasses and greenhouse gasses. A sideeffect of reduction in some of the other greenhouse gasses besides CO2, would help ozone depletion too.
River pollution is broad, can you define it further? If it is the european rivers, it was always about actually caring enough to build waste water treatment plants... And river pollution is a local problem, not global!
My point is: there is a problem with a certain kind of pollution (CFC) and it was dealt with. Easy and cost effective. Germans are afraid of everything. They suddenly decided to get rid of nuclear power plants because of a tsunami. First of all nuclear power is the most enviromental energy source available. Secondly there is approximatly 0% chance of tsunamis in germany. It is easier for them to create problems than to actually discover them.
River pollution problems are interesting because if you live upstream you have zero incentives to keep them clean or not using all of the water. Still with either property rights or licensing it works.
|
2. Investing means spending money with the expectations of some returns. At the very moment no one invests, because the expected returns are too low. Rather invest it in useful stuff.
The returns are only so low because they dont have a price tag put onto them. Everyone is taking them for granted.
3. No. Actually it is more the other way around. The amount of negative climate effects must gigantic and with a high enough probability to to negate the benefits we could accumulate if we invest the economy and technology. If you must mention some mysterious scientific studies that show this, show the work.
The possible negative effects can have gigantic effects,and the benefits from an alternative allocation are not that big in the grand sceme of things.
If we would spend 1% every year of the world gdp on trying to solve these problems, then in 100 years the economy would only be 1% smaller according to your theory. Economies fluctuate with percentages every year already. It is even debatable if infinite growth, wich your model is based on, is sustainable in the long run annyway.
And putting monney into trying to stop global heating does not neccesarely mean there will be no usefull technological discoverys made by using that part of the monney, you automatically asume that if that monney was put into other things that the inventions wich came out of that will have more value then the inventions and technological progress wich will come out of more research into stopping global heating.
Just because something is not profitable for a company to do does not mean that it does not contribute to economic growth in the long run.
The nasa is a black hole for monney, they never made a profit ever but all the monney put into it has paid of verry well and the whole economy profitted from its technological progress.
|
If we spend every year 1% of the GDP that would cut our gdp by 64% after 100 years. This is also not my theory but a well established fact, like gravity. It seems to me a bit sensless to keep writing anything more if you still do not understand the most basic argument I made and keep bringing up completly irrelevant other stuff 'to make your point'.
|
On August 25 2013 06:16 legor wrote:
If we spend every year 1% of the GDP that would cut our gdp by 64% after 100 years. This is also not my theory but a well established fact, like gravity. It seems to me a bit sensless to keep writing anything more if you still do not understand the most basic argument I made and keep bringing up completly irrelevant other stuff 'to make your point'.
I don't think people disagree with your argument that putting money in the bank instead of spending it now results in a bigger pile of money in the future. The more relevant argument is whether or not it's worthwhile to be spending money now in order to mitigate potential climate change-related problems in the future. It seems that you think it's more worthwhile to have a bigger pile of money with which to address problems at some later time point. Does this mean that instead of cutting aside money to spend on reducing carbon emissions you want to set aside the same amount of money for investing? If that's the case, then where is the money coming from that is to be invested instead of spent on carbon emissions reduction? Other people think that it's necessary to start spending money on reducing carbon emissions now and that what's at stake overrides saving money now in order to have more later or realistically not doing anything at all.
|
On August 25 2013 04:05 legor wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2013 02:00 kwizach wrote:On August 24 2013 23:49 legor wrote:On August 24 2013 23:00 kwizach wrote:On August 24 2013 18:26 legor wrote:
2. we do not spend 1 billion to reduce the temperature by x%, but rather invest it
[...]
2. the people have 20 billion which they can either invest in new technologies to reduce the temperature or use the money to adjust to the temperature increase. Who's "the people"? That looks to me like an incredibly naïve view of money allocation, in addition to being a complete gamble on actually being able to completely reverse the increases in CO2 levels that would have been going on over several decades AND not feeling any effects of these increases until then. Please explain why my view of money allocation (I never talked about money allocation btw.) is incredible naiv. Show your work. In addition the "gamble" that we are in the future more efficient to deal with global warming than we are, is no more an "gamble" than the idea that effects of global warming are so damaging that it is most efficient to deal with it now. You wrote that one billion used now to invest rather than to fight global warming would leave "the people" living in the future with twenty billions that they can use against global warming. 1. You didn't answer my question - who is "the people" in your scenario? 2. It's a naïve view of money allocation because absolutely nobody in the private and public sectors is currently investing money in order to have more money to spend on fighting global warming later. This means that in your scenario where global warming is not being addressed and there comes a time when something needs to be done further down the road, the money will have to come from the government at a much larger cost to everyone than the cost over time of the efforts that are being proposed today. 3. Of course it's way more of a gamble. Your scenario is not about "being more efficient to deal with global warming in the future" (nobody's denying that's going to be the case), it's about being able to completely adjust to/overturn the effects of decades of global warming added to the current temperature levels, AND not having suffered due to global warming during the said decades. It's a complete gamble, way more than enacting policies based on the scientific studies that have been done on the effects of global warming. 1. People who live in 100 years? Humans, maybe robots by that time. 2. Investing means spending money with the expectations of some returns. At the very moment no one invests, because the expected returns are too low. Rather invest it in useful stuff. 3. No. Actually it is more the other way around. The amount of negative climate effects must gigantic and with a high enough probability to to negate the benefits we could accumulate if we invest the economy and technology. If you must mention some mysterious scientific studies that show this, show the work. Show nested quote +Calling the ozone layer problem and the nuclear waste problem for solved is pretty selective. Just because the problems are out of the media, they are in no way solved. The nuclear waste problem is actually still a hot potato in Germany (untill they decided to thrash nuclear energy, which will give rise to several other problems, but thats another story...) ie.
The ozone depletion seems to be slowing down. It still sucks for New Zealand and Australia and it will continue sucking for them the next several decades. That is if the problem has actually been solved! The other thing is that CFC-ban was among 43 nations of at least 200 countries and the alternatives are better but still mostly ozone depleting. The development in the rest of the world is slowing recovery! Besides, there is a significant overlap in ozone depleting gasses and greenhouse gasses. A sideeffect of reduction in some of the other greenhouse gasses besides CO2, would help ozone depletion too.
River pollution is broad, can you define it further? If it is the european rivers, it was always about actually caring enough to build waste water treatment plants... And river pollution is a local problem, not global!
My point is: there is a problem with a certain kind of pollution (CFC) and it was dealt with. Easy and cost effective. Germans are afraid of everything. They suddenly decided to get rid of nuclear power plants because of a tsunami. First of all nuclear power is the most enviromental energy source available. Secondly there is approximatly 0% chance of tsunamis in germany. It is easier for them to create problems than to actually discover them. River pollution problems are interesting because if you live upstream you have zero incentives to keep them clean or not using all of the water. Still with either property rights or licensing it works.
CFC was dealt with through almost two decades of research into alternatives and a lot of political lobbying against the ban. Not unlike the current situation on greenhouse gasses!
In terms of Germany and nuclear power, the reason for the shutdown was likely more of a question about the waste disposal and the incompetence in dealing with the safety-problems in Fukushima (which btw. is still ongoing and to some degree escalating with the new leaks!) was just the straw breaking the camels back. Germany has had huge problems with transport of nuclear waste transportation getting sabotaged by Green Peace et al. and the cost of the safety measures needed to deal with the highly radioactive stuff was very high. Add to that the highly radioactive stuff still being a huge headscratcher to deal with and you have a causus belli to wage war on nuclear energy. So far the solution has been to store highly radioactive waste into closed down mines and hope for technological improvements on how to deal with it. It has admittedly improved, might I add, in particularly Great Britain and France. Still, though the amount is smaller, the problems still remain and no solution is in immediate sight for handling it, though fourth generation technology might reduce the production of high level waste a lot in 30 or 40 years when the full scale implementation is starting to complete. Nuclear energy is an amazing type of energy when it comes to greenhouse gasses, but it has its own drawbacks. I am not not really going to take a stance for or against as such, though I wouldn't feel comfortable living too close to a depot nor a power plant.
When it comes to rivers I see your point, though I do not think it is as simple as that to reach a concensus when it takes considerably more countries to agree on CO2-reduction than it takes to deal with river pollution.
Generally there are 4 ways to deal with greenhouse gasses:
1) Heavy investment in research
2) Heavyhanded market-regulation (bans, minimum efficiency standards etc.)
3) Actively trying to adapt to the changes caused by CO2 and climate change
4) Subsidies and extra taxation to encourage development of CO2-neutral equipment
Not doing any of the above: The non-believer/denier. Would take you believing the effects are almost non-existent or climate change is a conspiracy/hoax/no worry, god will save us anyway/no worries the free market will save us etc.
3 and none of the others: The sceptic. It takes you believing the effects will be minor and non-cumulative.
1 and 3: The conservative. Unfortunately it is also slow in the beginning, when the low hanging fruits are there and thus it might end up becoming more expensive to act later on since there will be more CO2 in the atmosphere to deal with then.
2 and 4: The progressive. Unfortunately these instruments can be very harsh towards the industry. And it will hurt the economy in the short term, just as the lack of economic growth might hurt research in the longer run.
Many will want some combination and everything can be done to varrying degree but ultimately politics will be politics.
I expect you are arguing from a primarily conservative or sceptical standpoint according to those definitions?
|
On August 25 2013 04:05 legor wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2013 02:00 kwizach wrote:On August 24 2013 23:49 legor wrote:On August 24 2013 23:00 kwizach wrote:On August 24 2013 18:26 legor wrote:
2. we do not spend 1 billion to reduce the temperature by x%, but rather invest it
[...]
2. the people have 20 billion which they can either invest in new technologies to reduce the temperature or use the money to adjust to the temperature increase. Who's "the people"? That looks to me like an incredibly naïve view of money allocation, in addition to being a complete gamble on actually being able to completely reverse the increases in CO2 levels that would have been going on over several decades AND not feeling any effects of these increases until then. Please explain why my view of money allocation (I never talked about money allocation btw.) is incredible naiv. Show your work. In addition the "gamble" that we are in the future more efficient to deal with global warming than we are, is no more an "gamble" than the idea that effects of global warming are so damaging that it is most efficient to deal with it now. You wrote that one billion used now to invest rather than to fight global warming would leave "the people" living in the future with twenty billions that they can use against global warming. 1. You didn't answer my question - who is "the people" in your scenario? 2. It's a naïve view of money allocation because absolutely nobody in the private and public sectors is currently investing money in order to have more money to spend on fighting global warming later. This means that in your scenario where global warming is not being addressed and there comes a time when something needs to be done further down the road, the money will have to come from the government at a much larger cost to everyone than the cost over time of the efforts that are being proposed today. 3. Of course it's way more of a gamble. Your scenario is not about "being more efficient to deal with global warming in the future" (nobody's denying that's going to be the case), it's about being able to completely adjust to/overturn the effects of decades of global warming added to the current temperature levels, AND not having suffered due to global warming during the said decades. It's a complete gamble, way more than enacting policies based on the scientific studies that have been done on the effects of global warming. 1. People who live in 100 years? Humans, maybe robots by that time. 2. Investing means spending money with the expectations of some returns. At the very moment no one invests, because the expected returns are too low. Rather invest it in useful stuff. 3. No. Actually it is more the other way around. The amount of negative climate effects must gigantic and with a high enough probability to to negate the benefits we could accumulate if we invest the economy and technology. If you must mention some mysterious scientific studies that show this, show the work.
1. You're not getting it. You are talking about "people" putting one billion into investments in order to have 20 billion later to spend on fighting global warming and its effects. Who is actually doing that? Since absolutely nobody is, the money would have to come from the government, who would not have been "investing" the way you're describing it.
2. This doesn't address what I said at all.
3. We can both invest in technology & the economy and in fighting global warming. The two aren't mutually exclusive. The effects of global warming are and will be serious, while nothing indicates we'll suddenly have the technology to overturn everything (and even if we did, it would not be able to change what happened between now and then due to continued global warming effects). That's why what you're proposing is a complete gamble, way more than policies aimed at fighting global warming today.
|
Don't worry. The wars over diminishing resources and access to water in the coming century should reduce the human populace sufficiently that we will have enough energy to bicker over pointless bullshit for millennia to come.
|
On August 25 2013 08:06 NSGrendel wrote:
Don't worry. The wars over diminishing resources and access to water in the coming century should reduce the human populace sufficiently that we will have enough energy to bicker over pointless bullshit for millennia to come.
Pay attention people. You can learn something from this man.
|
On August 25 2013 08:26 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2013 08:06 NSGrendel wrote:
Don't worry. The wars over diminishing resources and access to water in the coming century should reduce the human populace sufficiently that we will have enough energy to bicker over pointless bullshit for millennia to come. Pay attention people. You can learn something from this man.
Whilst I appreciate your sarcasm, I'm just going by what I learnt from transcribing the entire of the climate science syllabus at degree level. One hopes it will work out better, but I'm not seeing much evidence to the contrary.
You think food got expensive in the last few years? You wait until India and China REALLY start gaining consumer spending power.
But don't take it from me. Read about it.
e.g. http://www.ats-sea.agr.gc.ca/asi/pdf/6077-eng.pdf
|
It honestly wasn't sarcasm.
|
On August 25 2013 06:16 legor wrote:
If we spend every year 1% of the GDP that would cut our gdp by 64% after 100 years. This is also not my theory but a well established fact, like gravity. It seems to me a bit sensless to keep writing anything more if you still do not understand the most basic argument I made and keep bringing up completly irrelevant other stuff 'to make your point'.
No i do understand your most basic argument and you are right that 1% smaller economy now every year will lead to 66% smaller economy in the future but you dont want to see my arguments and do not respond to anny of them.
The monney is not taken out of the economy it is just spend in a different way and you automatically asume that this is a bad way wich will lead to no revenus because there is no profit for corporations in doing so.
This assumption is wrong because things wich do not make a direct profit for anny company can still have huge revenus for the whole economy, for wich i gave the situation with nasa as an example though it is easily possible to think of lots of other situations.
.
|
On August 25 2013 08:34 NSGrendel wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2013 08:26 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:On August 25 2013 08:06 NSGrendel wrote:
Don't worry. The wars over diminishing resources and access to water in the coming century should reduce the human populace sufficiently that we will have enough energy to bicker over pointless bullshit for millennia to come. Pay attention people. You can learn something from this man. Whilst I appreciate your sarcasm, I'm just going by what I learnt from transcribing the entire of the climate science syllabus at degree level. One hopes it will work out better, but I'm not seeing much evidence to the contrary. You think food got expensive in the last few years? You wait until India and China REALLY start gaining consumer spending power. But don't take it from me. Read about it. e.g. http://www.ats-sea.agr.gc.ca/asi/pdf/6077-eng.pdf
So where in that Canadian Department of Agriculture report on Chinese Dairy imports does it describe the coming global food shortage? Maybe I'm missing it amongst heifer price quotes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
