|
On July 26 2012 15:43 BrTarolg wrote:
One of the wonderful things about world economics is that they are (for the most part) self righting
That's pretty much bunk. They're not self-righting. They never were self righting. They're not even self-righting in a game like diablo3 where the richest can't even influence the game rules. How are they more righting in a real world scenario where parts of governments can often be bought by corporations?
At some point in the future, >we know< that energy is an issue, and as a public we have pretty much forced (whether correct or not) the idea of greater externalities onto the world of the energy industry (which is what allows the great monstrosities that are wind farms to even exist)
What are you talking about? They're not forced in at all. If they were, the oil would stay in the ground because of global warming. Energy companies, which are among the worlds most powerful/largest/most influential are fighting tooth and nail to fuel the entire climate change denialist movement. The evidence is stronger for anthropogenic climate change than ever before, yet fewer ppl in North America believe it than last year.
Eventually, if there is a shortage, some forms of energy become more and more expensive, and simply too unwieldy, making more technologically efficient solutions (such as nuclear and fusion) more commercially viable
I think the entire point is that the world is fucked long long long before there is a shortage of hydrocarbons.
|
seeing the votes for another depression already shows how pointless these discussions are. A neuroscientist wouldn't talk about brain surgery with a manual labourer and ask his opinion, similarly asking anywhere on the internet where 95% of people have no idea what the value of a dollar is, or what hard living is, about global economy or finance or anything that has ramifications beyond scope beyond their own life is pointless.
|
On July 26 2012 16:37 InfernoStarcraft wrote:
seeing the votes for another depression already shows how pointless these discussions are. A neuroscientist wouldn't talk about brain surgery with a manual labourer and ask his opinion, similarly asking anywhere on the internet where 95% of people have no idea what the value of a dollar is, or what hard living is, about global economy or finance or anything that has ramifications beyond scope beyond their own life is pointless.
you would talk to a manual laborer about brain surgery if it was his brain being operated on, a depression and global warming will both affect many people, many who are not economists or scientists, or old enough to know what depressions feel like,
Even if you don't understand why others think this way, isn't the point of these topics to inform and express opinions in hopes other people will see and perhaps think about what your saying? If you find a lot of people hold an opinion contrary to yours, take it as a platform for you to back up your beliefs, or perhaps come to understand the beliefs of others.
|
|
|
I have to say, very nicely written thread. One encounters plenty of Global warming threads on this site, but I have not encountered a Global Warming OP as thought provoking as this one. I am also reminded of the Police song "wrapped around your finger". Thanks OP.
|
career knowledge is so damn specialized in these times
i'd like to say i agree but honestly i have no fucking clue about any of the science
|
While you are right about the investments made, it does not mean that there will be an economic collapse when we start using an alternative source of energy. In fact, I think the opposite will happen. History has shown that any big technologic advancement brings a new level of prosperity. Yes, the current oil companies will stop or transition and new companies will arrise. This is not about money, it is about power. The oil companies are making an effort to stop any advancements in energy by buying up companies and patents, and forcing technology to stay at the current level.
|
We are already past peak oil. So its not really a 20 trillion dollar asset, as oil starts to run out, it will become more expensive and less affordable, its both an infinitely high asset and potentially worthless at the same time.
Money that goes to oil companies does not necessarily go back to the people. If we tax the oil companies so much that they go broke, nothing happens except they go broke. With the subprime mortgage market, the tax was taking money off the general populace, when we tax oil companies, its completely different.
People will end up having to move off cars that use oil, or use public transport anyway because they won't be able to afford to refill their cars after a certain point in time.
What's frustrating is negligence in developing renewable/healthy technologies because the oil companies are paying money to create resistance against reducing our dependence on oil. Oil companies don't give a shit if people get sick from heavily polluted cities, nor if the pollution increases the power/frequency of natural disasters.
The point of taxing oil, is to put a price on environmental damage. Just like a tobacco tax, people die from smoking cigarettes, we make the purchaser offset the money that is taken from the tax payers to fund the hospitals. Likewise, oil companies should have to offset the taxpayer dollars that go into caring for the environment.
|
we dont burn it, invesments fail. everything collapses. we rebuild.
we burn it, invesments fail at a later time since world is not at nice to circulate ever increasing invesments. everything collapse. 1/10we rebuild ,maybe, in a very shity way.
a bigger impact on not burning the fuel accually is not money not returning. If we do not act fast and dont burn it, established industry will slow down. currency is much more managable than supplies. Then again industry would surely take a bigger hit from a climate crisis..
aslo either way bigger issue is war. I think, war over limited and depleting resources woudl be much more longer and merciless compared to economical dominance, which prefers to have your enemy intact to establish dominance over.
Its not that hard to fix economy, 3 generations? maybe 4? I say its a easy call.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51485 Posts
Wait so your saying that climate change is caused by the carbon that is in the ground...and when it's all burnt we will have a fucked up climate?
There is 20trillion $s worth of Carbon in the ground waiting to be used and that would take a long time? I would not know how long it would take us to burn all that and let alone find it all. But we have been working on different sources of energy for years now, it's only a matter of time before Oil becomes useless anyway and we're all riding around in silly electric cars and waiting for a gust of wind or a sunny day to power up our heating systems and electricity supplies. Here a quick list of what were using now;
Solar energy
Solar energy is generating of electricity from the sun. It is split up into two types, thermal and electric energy. These two subgroups mean that they heat up homes (and water) and generate electricity respectively.
Wind energy
Wind energy is generating of electricity from the wind.
Geothermal energy
Geothermal energy is using hot water or steam from the Earth’s interior for heating buildings or electricity generation.
Biofuel and ethanol
Biofuel and ethanol are plant-derived substitutes of gasoline for powering vehicles.
Hydrogen
Hydrogen is used as clean fuel for airplanes, spaceships, and some cars.
+ Show Spoiler [Newest Energy] +
Algae fuel
Algae fuel is a biofuel which is derived from algae. During photosynthesis, algae and other photosynthetic organisms capture carbon dioxide and sunlight and convert it into oxygen and biomass. The benefits of algal biofuel are that it can be produced industrially, thereby obviating the use of arable land and food crops (such as soy, palm, and canola), and that it has a very high oil yield as compared to all other sources of biofuel.
Biomass briquettes
Biomass briquettes are being developed in the developing world as an alternative to charcoal. The technique involves the conversion of almost any plant matter into compressed briquettes that typically have about 70% the calorific value of charcoal. There are relatively few examples of large scale briquette production. One exception is in North Kivu, in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, where forest clearance for charcoal production is considered to be the biggest threat to Mountain Gorilla habitat. The staff of Virunga National Park have successfully trained and equipped over 3500 people to produce biomass briquettes, thereby replacing charcoal produced illegally inside the national park, and creating significant employment for people living in extreme poverty in conflict affected areas.
Biogas digestion
Biogas digestion deals with harnessing the methane gas that is released when waste breaks down. This gas can be retrieved from garbage or sewage systems. Biogas digesters are used to process methane gas by having bacteria break down biomass in an anaerobic environment. The methane gas that is collected and refined can be used as an energy source for various products.
Biological Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen gas is a completely clean burning fuel; its only by-product is water.It also contains relatively high amount of energy compared with other fuels due to its chemical structure.
2H2 + O2 → 2H2O + High Energy
High Energy + 2H2O → 2H2 + O2
This requires a high-energy input, making commercial hydrogen very inefficient.Use of a biological vector as a means to split water, and therefore produce hydrogen gas, would allow for the only energy input to be solar radiation. Biological vectors can include bacteria or more commonly algae. This process is known as biological hydrogen production It requires the use of single celled organisms to create hydrogen gas through fermentation. Without the presence of oxygen, also known as an anaerobic environment, regular cellular respiration cannot take place and a process known as fermentation takes over. A major by-product of this process is hydrogen gas. If we could implement this on a large scale, then we could take sunlight, nutrients and water and create hydrogen gas to be used as a dense source of energy. Large-scale production has proven difficult. It was not until 1999 that we were able to even induce these anaerobic conditions by sulfur deprivation.Since the fermentation process is an evolutionary back up, turned on during stress, the cells would die after a few days. In 2000, a two-stage process was developed to take the cells in and out of anaerobic conditions and therefore keep them alive. For the last ten years, finding a way to do this on a large-scale has been the main goal of research. Careful work is being done to ensure an efficient process before large-scale production, however once a mechanism is developed, this type of production could solve our energy needs.
Floating wind farms
Floating wind farms are similar to a regular wind farm, but the difference is that they float in the middle of the ocean. Offshore wind farms can be placed in water up to 40 metres (130 ft) deep, whereas floating wind turbines can float in water up to 700 metres (2,300 ft) deep. The advantage of having a floating wind farm is to be able to harness the winds from the open ocean. Without any obstructions such as hills, trees and buildings, winds from the open ocean can reach up to speeds twice as fast as coastal areas.
Many new forms of energy listed in that, and thats just what we know there working on, i think the whole climate change fiasco is just getting out of hand really fast due to some weird strange weather, but people forget that records only began a 100 odd years ago and many scientists have predicted that it's due to the magnetosphere not man made gasses causing climate change. This quote, from a scientific discussion about a future ice age is the key to understanding what casues influxes in weather conditions;
Forget about global warming - man-made or natural - what drives planetary weather patterns is the climate and what drives the climate is the sun's magnetosphere and its electromagnetic interaction with a planet's own magnetic field.
I suggest if you want to learn more about the Magnetic Polar Shifts, which are the cause of most of the sevre weather you are whitnessing that you read about it or watch documentarys on it, it's the only thing im worried about, as im pretty sure we would completely fail if we had an ice age >.<
Read!
|
Wow, thanks for the share. Interesting to think about global climate change this way and how slowing it down or preventing it is at odds with assets/economic ideas. I think it's hard to have a 100% qualified opinion from us because it's so hard to be able to understand it to a great degree from both an economic and environmental standpoint. However, I think we would have to undergo whatever contraction would be implied by this disregard of fossil fuels to be able to come out alive.
|
All civilisations believe themselves to be invincible and everlasting. All civilisations eventually fall for precisely this reason.
Ultimately, there is nothing we can do to ward off the coming collapse. One way or another, it's just over the horizon. Our industrial society has been building up a massive debt over the last few centuries. We think that our actions have no consequences. Even if we could stave off the impending climate change catastrophe through some sort of massive geo-engineering project: we'd still be acidifying our oceans and filling them with plastic and soil, chopping down the rainforests at an ever increasing rate, the species extinction rate would still be higher than ever before in the history of the earth, we'd still be pumping toxic materials into our rivers and the sky. It's all happening not because some secret cabal of evil men is conspiring behind the scenes, but because we want our pretty trinkets, because we want to fly and drive everywhere, because we value growth and not ecosystems. You're part of it. I'm part of it by sitting here at my computer, eating my food shipped in from overseas, taking the bus to university tomorrow to finish my Environmental Engineering thesis.
We can't eat money. It's a cliche, but it's the truth. We place no value on them at all, but we can't live without ecosystems. If the bees die (which they are), we're fucked. How could we possibly feed 7 billion people without their help? One small species leaving us would have massive consequences, but it's happening virtually right across the board.
Our daily routines give us a sense of security and normality. Our institutions seem to have a certain solidity to them, reassuring us that everything is stable, everything will be fine. We know nothing else, which blinds us to the fragility of our society. How tenuous our supply chains are, how easily the house of cards will fall given the right set of circumstances.
It brings me no pleasure to say this, but collapse is inevitable. I don't know how it will happen. Perhaps this current economic crisis will bring down the world economy. Perhaps the consequences of peak oil will be felt as oil prices skyrocket, having flow on effects to virtually every aspect of our economy (food production, water purification, energy generation, plastics, transportation etc etc etc). Maybe a key ecosystem will collapse. Maybe the Ross Ice Shelf breaks off, flooding a significant portion of the world's arable land. Who knows? One thing is certain, it's happening in our lifetimes and probably a hell of lot sooner.
|
We're fucked when the next ice age hits, anyway. I don't know how people are going to survive when their house is under 5 miles of ice.
|
|
|
What you're talking about is impossible to predict. There is no way we know either the effects on the global economy, or the effects on the climate and world as a whole. Debating this from either standpoint is useless without a lot more reserch into nearly intangible areas of science and have a hard time defining what the weather.economy will be like tomorrow, let alone in 10-100 years.
It's a good question, and one we need to think about. But certainly not one with an easy answer. And certainly not one that the people in this thread will be able to answer unequivocally correct.
|
On July 26 2012 20:26 Alethios wrote:All civilisations believe themselves to be invincible and everlasting. All civilisations eventually fall for precisely this reason. Ultimately, there is nothing we can do to ward off the coming collapse. One way or another, it's just over the horizon. Our industrial society has been building up a massive debt over the last few centuries. We think that our actions have no consequences. Even if we could stave off the impending climate change catastrophe through some sort of massive geo-engineering project: we'd still be acidifying our oceans and filling them with plastic and soil, chopping down the rainforests at an ever increasing rate, the species extinction rate would still be higher than ever before in the history of the earth, we'd still be pumping toxic materials into our rivers and the sky. It's all happening not because some secret cabal of evil men is conspiring behind the scenes, but because we want our pretty trinkets, because we want to fly and drive everywhere, because we value growth and not ecosystems. You're part of it. I'm part of it by sitting here at my computer, eating my food shipped in from overseas, taking the bus to university tomorrow to finish my Environmental Engineering thesis. We can't eat money. It's a cliche, but it's the truth. We place no value on them at all, but we can't live without ecosystems. If the bees die (which they are), we're fucked. How could we possibly feed 7 billion people without their help? One small species leaving us would have massive consequences, but it's happening virtually right across the board. Our daily routines give us a sense of security and normality. Our institutions seem to have a certain solidity to them, reassuring us that everything is stable, everything will be fine. We know nothing else, which blinds us to the fragility of our society. How tenuous our supply chains are, how easily the house of cards will fall given the right set of circumstances. It brings me no pleasure to say this, but collapse is inevitable. I don't know how it will happen. Perhaps this current economic crisis will bring down the world economy. Perhaps the consequences of peak oil will be felt as oil prices skyrocket, having flow on effects to virtually every aspect of our economy (food production, water purification, energy generation, plastics, transportation etc etc etc). Maybe a key ecosystem will collapse. Maybe the Ross Ice Shelf breaks off, flooding a significant portion of the world's arable land. Who knows? One thing is certain, it's happening in our lifetimes and probably a hell of lot sooner.
I don't buy the contention that collapse is inevitable as a result of ecological strain. I think there are two ways out:
1) Geo-engineering: already mentioned, but I was thinking along the lines of massive iron seeding in world oceans to encourage algal blooms that suck up CO2, or creating nanite-driven gas-traps that take hot, CO2-rich, waste gas and turn it into polysaccharides or something.
2) Space exploration. Encouraging mass emigration off Earth is the other solution to this problem, and I think a few trillion dollars of subsidized investment would go a long way towards making this technologically/economically feasible.
|
People forget that one of the main concerns of a scientist is to convince people they need funding, in order to do their research. This factors heavily into the global warming controversy, since the concerned public could very well provide this funding.
|
also the problem with modern democraty is that it is too slow. If they figure out some new law, they need like 2 years to pass it and after this period of time the world could have changed that they should configure the new law, adapting to the new circumstances, but this would take time and than the enviroment is changed again.
If one rules a larger portion of the world he could say: "Do this!", and we have to do as he says. (or she) But due to the fact that nearly every person in such a position is abusing thioer power, it dosn't work either.
So we are kinda f***ed.
Also in my opinion politicans are losing thier sight for reality and are just ignoring the bad things or the industrie is telling them what to do, but they don't recognize that this is wrong.
Maybe our "leaders" are willing to help us, what is the intention to do this job, but what they do hurts us in many cases, because their adivors are thelling them supid thing.
|
Wow. Thank you for this amazing talk between McPherson, and Kim Hill. I would never have come across this if it weren't for you. There are points to think over on both sides here.
|
Too many people have too much invested in denying Global Warming for any kind of global government-sanctioned policy to succeed, especially in the US.
What will probably happen: we'll go along as per usual, burn up some fuel, then the evidence about global warming will become concrete in terms of data analysis. Nothing will happen. Then, one day, a disaster caused by the climate change will hit an LEDC like 2004. No action will be taken in the US.
Then, a disaster will hit an affluent part of the States, a place where even scum-sucking selfish lobbyist billionaires might live or have emotional investment in. Suddenly, the race to become President will be based around who can convince people the best that they have been for preventing climate change all the time. They will attempt to cut down on energy useage in the US, with limited success. Instead, they will put political pressure on other countries, specifically those taking out hydrocarbons from the Earth. Eventually, the energy production will switch to less destructive sources, such as wind farms or (most likely) Nuclear fission or maybe fusion.
By then, climate change will be pretty bad. People will die. Rich businessmen and Republicans in America will convince themselves that the situation is fine, that they took the rational course of action, that there wasn't enough evidence at the time when they had the choice to minimise human energy consumption, that there were too many people alive anyway.
And people will look back and agree, just as most people on the internet do today: fuck everything about US politics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
