The Official Global Warming/Climate Change Thread

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: mayor_brando

You also apparently know nothing about the cap and trade plan. It does put taxes on energy companies, and the benefits won't come immediately. But the plan is that we'll be more energy-independent by the year 2020, and more of our energy will be produced through renewable resources (e.g. wind, solar, hydroelectricity, etc.).

I would like to hear why you think the plan is a load of bunk. It will help the environment, and the economy in the long-run, and I think the Obama Administration is doing a pretty good job.quote>

I'm curious to know exactly why people think taxing dirty industries is actually going to clean up the environment or have any positive impact whatsoever.  If the US signs a deal agreeing to limit carbon emissions and place restrictions on it's dirtier industries, those industries will find somewher to operate where they don't have that problem, such as China.  In the end, all you've accomplished is shifting emissions production from one country to another (not that politicians care as they can play the "we're committed to the environment" card).

Telling people that there will be consquences is not telling them they will die, and it is not a way to make money.quote>

Money can be made off creating hysteria.  Money can be made off of almost anything if you're interested in profiting from it.  Billions of dollars has been made off of the "cell phones cause brain cancer!" scare, and yet there is little evidence to support that claim.

To offer a relevant example, look at British Petroleum.  I've had the opportunity to personally speak with representatives of the company, and the message from them is that BP has positioned itself to profit from the renewable energy shift and is now supporting efforts to speed up the transition.  Why?  BP is one of the furthest along in terms of switching over to a renewable energy business model and by its estimates, it stands to make over $200 billion in profits over 5-10 years if it can help push the transition through before its competitors are ready.  Moral of the story: money can be made off pushing the cap-and-trade policy and other efforts and being more "environmentally friendly" and they have been doing it for years already.

Originally posted by: manticorefan

But if they don't solve the waste issue, we're going to have real trouble.quote>

Nuclear engineers are busy designing 4th generation nuclear reactors and from the current indications, they have probably found a solution.  The 4th generation designs are likely going to make breeder reactors commercially viable, and with that, the waste that's been piling up will now be usable as fuel.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: hym

I'm curious to know exactly why people think taxing dirty industries is actually going to clean up the environment or have any positive impact whatsoever.  If the US signs a deal agreeing to limit carbon emissions and place restrictions on it's dirtier industries, those industries will find somewher to operate where they don't have that problem, such as China.  In the end, all you've accomplished is shifting emissions production from one country to another (not that politicians care as they can play the "we're committed to the environment" card).quote>

Id like to know that too. If as you said they just move operations to china or just pay the tax, which in the short term would be cheaper then actualy dealing with thier wastes. They will continue to dump thier crap in the enviroment and point to their "Carbon Tax".

[confused04 14]

Generally I avoid this thread like I avoid North Minneapolis but I just had something quick to say...

For those saying its arrogant to think that humans can affect the environment or that we are too insignificant to do anything... I disagree. I think arrogance lies in the inability to accept the fact that our actions have consequences....

[Ntq€310 1]

Hmm, looking at a report. It appears that new chemicals that we put into our gases in order to repair the hole in the Ozone may be the cause of Global Warming. Since such chemicals are like super green house gases or something. Though I don't know any of the real data behind this.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Ntq€310 1]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/19/AR2009071901817.html?hpid=topnews

Sorry, had trouble finding it.

[gml_josea 2]

Do you know anything about fossil fuels? Emmisions from gas and other fossil fuels have chemicals that absorb the sun's heat and trap it, blanketing the earth in what is called "The Greenhouse Effect". And we are

not

just burning fuel. We are also spewing dozens of chemicals into the air, not just from fuel, but also from everyday things (e.g. hairspray, household cleaners, pesticides). Add the amount of chemicals we use every day, and muiltiply that by five years. And we've been doing this a lot longer than five years.  I can safely say that we've had an impact on the environment. If it isn't bad, it 

will be

. Some people

will

die if we don't do something.

Thanks, but I don't need a teacher. I'm all for reducing the amount of nasty chemicals we throw into the atmosphere, but I have a hard time believing there will be a real impact on something as huge as climate in the long term. There are just too many variables involved in it, the scale is huge, and to top that, we don't even fully understand it. Anyways, if you're so concerned about this, I really hope you're doing everything you can to reduce your impact on the environment, because I'm going to be mad if you tell me you're waiting for everyone else to do something.

Yeah, they've been publishing studies. That's what they do. What do you think they base their studies on? Hmm... science. Science can be proven;

it is real.

Anyway, I sugggest you actually read some of these studies. Whether humans contributed or not, none of them deny that there has been a (slight) shift in climate.

 

You can't prove science, because science implies proven facts, if it is not proven it is not science, it's an idea, a theory at best. The climate has changed, so what? In northern countries it changes four times a year, it is called seasons, how do we know this change is not part of a bigger cycle that lasts for longer than we live? We don't because we don't have enough precise data to say it. Yes, we can study ice and all those things, but nothing beats having actual insturments measuring variables, and those have only been there for half century. The point is, we don't know enough to warrant all this screaming, fear and spending on climate change.

You also apparently know nothing about the cap and trade plan. It does put taxes on energy companies, and the benefits won't come immediately. But the plan is that we'll be more energy-independent by the year 2020, and more of our energy will be produced through renewable resources (e.g. wind, solar, hydroelectricity, etc.).

I would like to hear why you think the plan is a load of bunk. It will help the environment, and the economy in the long-run, and I think the Obama Administration is doing a pretty good job.

I think other posters have covered this already.

What do you think scientists are doing right now, just sitting around?

Scientists never sit around, but people and politicians do. Thanks to them the development and construction of nuclear energy has stalled.

Actually, there is a problem *gasp* with effectivly disposing of radioactive material. You can't just dump somewhere and expect it to go away. There is also a problem of transporting it to be disposed of. Often times it'll have to be carried by truck or train, sometimes through developed areas. And if there is a contamination of it, it'll be a damn mess. I do like nuclear energy, as it's cleaner than gas or oil, but I don't like it's waste.

Telling people that there will be consquences is

not

telling them they will die, and it is

not

a way to make money. It

is

, however, a way to get people to be more environmentaly friendly.

Really, what do you base your post on?

Nobody likes its waste, but apparently nobody likes greenhouse gases either, so what do we do? No, don't say Solar or Wind, because those alternatives are ridicoulous (that's another thing, but I don't have enough time to discuss it)

Telling people they will die has been the best way to manipulate them throught history. It is surprisingly effective. I don't think scaring people into being more environmental friendly is good, manipulating people with fear always ends bad.

I basemy post on rational thought. Do we need a PhD to post here or something? Or college students are not allowed to express their opinions?

[fukuda 351]

Experts say that some substitutes, with less global warming impact, can be made with new HFCs or by using ammonia or butane.quote>

=_=

Are they crazy or what?

[schm0 27]

Holy crap this post is still going? *rolls up sleeves*

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: hym

I'm curious to know exactly why people think taxing dirty industries is actually going to clean up the environment or have any positive impact whatsoever.  If the US signs a deal agreeing to limit carbon emissions and place restrictions on it's dirtier industries, those industries will find somewher to operate where they don't have that problem, such as China.quote>

Some of the most dirty industries that produce carbon emissions are energy companys, namely coal-fire power plants. Fortunately, there are no electric lines running from China to the U.S., so these sorts of industries will have an incentive to clean up their stacks and invest in technology that can capture and/or filter out the carbon dioxide from their emissions.

In the end, all you've accomplished is shifting emissions production from one country to another (not that politicians care as they can play the "we're committed to the environment" card).quote>

That's why international consensus is key to any legislation or treaties signed regarding carbon emissions and/or the carbon tax. And the U.S. could do more to curb the exodus of manufacturing by taxing the imports of American companies that choose to produce their goods elsewhere only to sell them here in the U.S. There are plenty of other incentives such as tax breaks to those who stay and federally subsidized investments in green technology, to name a few.

Money can be made off creating hysteria.  Money can be made off of almost anything if you're interested in profiting from it.  Billions of dollars has been made off of the "cell phones cause brain cancer!" scare, and yet there is little evidence to support that claim.quote>

As far as I know the communications industry is in good health. Am I missing something here? Who precisely profited from the so-called "scare?" The non-cancer-causing cell phone provider?

To offer a relevant example, look at British Petroleum.  I've had the opportunity to personally speak with representatives of the company, and the message from them is that BP has positioned itself to profit from the renewable energy shift and is now supporting efforts to speed up the transition.  Why?  BP is one of the furthest along in terms of switching over to a renewable energy business model and by its estimates, it stands to make over $200 billion in profits over 5-10 years if it can help push the transition through before its competitors are ready.  Moral of the story: money can be made off pushing the cap-and-trade policy and other efforts and being more "environmentally friendly" and they have been doing it for years already.quote>

And at the same time, they are basking in the joy of winning the bid on one of Iraq's largest oil fields:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/200963093615637434.html

Nuclear engineers are busy designing 4th generation nuclear reactors and from the current indications, they have probably found a solution.  The 4th generation designs are likely going to make breeder reactors commercially viable, and with that, the waste that's been piling up will now be usable as fuel.quote>

I'm all for nuclear, and you're completely correct that the next generation of nuclear power plants are safer, more energy efficient and *gasp* renewable!

[Ntq€310 1]

Originally posted by: schm0

Some of the most dirty industries that produce carbon emissions are energy companys, namely coal-fire power plants. Fortunately, there are no electric lines running from China to the U.S., so these sorts of industries will have an incentive to clean up their stacks and invest in technology that can capture and/or filter out the carbon dioxide from their emissions.quote>

Most of them would just close down, in which the effect would be a spike in energy prices. Since the average coal mine or town won't be that big company that can afford to suddenly put billions into something other than what it's doing. Obama said it himself, his policy will lead to closings of the plants and a spike in prices.

That's why international consensus is key to any legislation or treaties signed regarding carbon emissions and/or the carbon tax. And the U.S. could do more to curb the exodus of manufacturing by taxing the imports of American companies that choose to produce their goods elsewhere only to sell them here in the U.S. There are plenty of other incentives such as tax breaks to those who stay and federally subsidized investments in green technology, to name a few. quote>

However, most of the developing world, and powers like India and China have said there is no way in hell that they would get on board something like the U.S. is doing. They want economic growth, so letting there dirty industry go rampant is there best option. Tax breaks so far have not worked, and Green technology takes time to develop and implement. And even with that, it's easier to just pay the sweatshop worker in china rather than stay in the United States, tax breaks or not.

It's a global economy now, and the United States has failed to compete. We've left are industrial sector to die, and now were left with a service economy. It's going to take both time, and a lot of diffrent changes to help our industrial sector.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: Ntq$310

Most of them would just close down, in which the effect would be a spike in energy prices. Since the average coal mine or town won't be that big company that can afford to suddenly put billions into something other than what it's doing. Obama said it himself, his policy will lead to closings of the plants and a spike in prices.quote>

Do you have a link to that quote?

And yes, unfortunately people who work at jobs where they dig out the most carbon-producing fuel will have to find other work. The good news is, new green technology comes with new green jobs. Instead of working in a coal mine, they could be getting a tan and installing solar panels on office buildings, for example.

However, most of the developing world, and powers like India and China have said there is no way in hell that they would get on board something like the U.S. is doing. They want economic growth, so letting there dirty industry go rampant is there best option. Tax breaks so far have not worked, and Green technology takes time to develop and implement. And even with that, it's easier to just pay the sweatshop worker in china rather than stay in the United States, tax breaks or not.quote>

I didn't say there was already global consensus. That was what Kyoto was all about, building towards a gradual reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. You can have growth and environmental progress at the same time, but India and China merely want to be bigger players on the international stage for political and regional reasons. Exponential growth such as has been seen in both of those countries in the last 50 years may not be as prevalent as it once was in those countries.

In a perfect world, changes to the way we think about pollution would have no adverse affects. Unfortunately, this is not the case. It's about cost/benefit, when you get down to it.

It's a global economy now, and the United States has failed to compete. We've left are industrial sector to die, and now were left with a service economy. It's going to take both time, and a lot of diffrent changes to help our industrial sector. quote>

I agree, exporting our manufacturing jobs overseas has destroyed the American worker. Trust me, I live in Detroit, so I know all about layoffs and job migration.

We need to revitalize our economy and get more manufacturing jobs back, and green technology is a good way to do that. They have been talking for a couple years now about installing wind turbines in Michigan, and building several factories here to make the parts and assemble them. Such opportunities could revive the industrial sector in a way that helps the economy and the environment.

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Nice to see you are still around, Schm0.

Barbarossa

quote>

Thanks! I stopped in with the beta release of CitiesXL. Unfortunately, it does not appear my computer is up to par with running the game much past several thousand people without losing framerate like crazy. So, I decided to poke my head in at the forums and what do I see on the first page? 

[Ntq€310 1]

Originally posted by: schm0

Do you have a link to that quote?

And yes, unfortunately people who work at jobs where they dig out the most carbon-producing fuel will have to find other work. The good news is, new green technology comes with new green jobs. Instead of working in a coal mine, they could be getting a tan and installing solar panels on office buildings, for example.quote>

The exact quote is this.

"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."quote>

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1174672/Barack_Obama_to_bankrupt_coal_plants.html

So not only would our Coal industry, one of the most important industries in our country, and our lifelines in many communities, would take a very deadly and hard hit. The effects of this could be disastourous for many areas.

On Green Jobs, just look below.

I didn't say there was already global consensus. That was what Kyoto was all about, building towards a gradual reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. You can have growth and environmental progress at the same time, but India and China merely want to be bigger players on the international stage for political and regional reasons. Exponential growth such as has been seen in both of those countries in the last 50 years may not be as prevalent as it once was in those countries.

In a perfect world, changes to the way we think about pollution would have no adverse affects. Unfortunately, this is not the case. It's about cost/benefit, when you get down to it.

I agree, exporting our manufacturing jobs overseas has destroyed the American worker. Trust me, I live in Detroit, so I know all about layoffs and job migration.

We need to revitalize our economy and get more manufacturing jobs back, and green technology is a good way to do that. They have been talking for a couple years now about installing wind turbines in Michigan, and building several factories here to make the parts and assemble them. Such opportunities could revive the industrial sector in a way that helps the economy and the environment.quote>

Green Jobs unfortunately, are a lie. Thats not to say we need them, we need people to put solar panels, make the wind turbines, etc, and we already do have people doing that in many places. That can even be expanded to cover more areas that they are needed, solar can do very good. But such green jobs won't cover a large part of our job losses from the death of our industrial sector. While it is to be expected that once the wind farm is done, there will be nothing left for the factory to do. So in order to keep employment sustainable, we won't see 100 factories popping up.

But the main study I'm looking at, http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf , involves Spain and there Green jobs projects, which our President has praised, is possible losing 2.2 jobs were every 1 green job they make. Or they lose 9 for every 4 jobs. 1/10 of such jobs are considered 'sustainable' in that they run or maintain the power plant or something as such. While at the same time it took Spain and huge amount of money to make such jobs, and subsidies for the wind industry, as well other industries are a lot.

Now that is not to say we will be exactly like Europe, or Spain, But we could expect a similar effect. The end result would be less jobs, less sustainable jobs, and higher energy and gas prices. Seeing as America is bigger than Spain ( and me having no idea on Spanish mining and energy industry's.) we could expect a huge loss of employment in our surviving industries, such as coal. Many areas will be hit hard, and energy prices will increase.

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: Ntq$310

The exact quote is this.

"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."quote>

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1174672/Barack_Obama_to_bankrupt_coal_plants.html

So not only would our Coal industry, one of the most important industries in our country, and our lifelines in many communities, would take a very deadly and hard hit. The effects of this could be disastrous for many areas.quote>

It appears this quote was taken out of context and spun by the Republicans during the campaign. The full quote is here: 

President Obama speaking to the San Francisco Chronicle

Emphasis mine

I voted against the Clear Skies Bill. In fact, I was the deciding vote -- despite the fact that I’m a coal state and that half my state thought that I had thoroughly betrayed them. Because I think clean air is critical and global warming is critical.

But this notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion. Because the fact of the matter is, is that right now we are getting a lot of our energy from coal. And China is building a coal-powered plant once a week. So what we have to do then is figure out how can we use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon. And how can we sequester that carbon and capture it. If we can’t, then we’re gonna still be working on alternatives.

But ... let me sort of describe my overall policy. What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade policy in place that is as aggressive if not more aggressive than anyone out there. I was the first call for 100 percent auction on the cap and trade system. Which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases that was emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants are being built, they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted-down caps that are imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel, and other alternative energy approaches. The only thing that I’ve said with respect to coal -- I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as an ideological matter, as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it, that I think is the right approach. The same with respect to nuclear. Right now, we don’t know how to store nuclear waste wisely and we don’t know how to deal with some of the safety issues that remain. And so it’s wildly expensive to pursue nuclear energy. But I tell you what, if we could figure out how to store it safely, then I think most of us would say that might be a pretty good deal.

The point is, if we set rigorous standards for the allowable emissions, then we can allow the market to determine and technology and entrepreneurs to pursue, what the best approach is to take, as opposed to us saying at the outset, here are the winners that we’re picking and maybe we pick wrong and maybe we pick right.quote>

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/11/republicans-to.html

Obama states that t idea of an energy system with no coal is "an illusion" and that the bankruptcy would be caused over time by the "ratcheted-down caps that are imposed every year." This money would then be used to fund alternative energy sources, dictated by the market as to what direction to go for alternative energy. He then states that the notion to take coal "off the table" is an "ideological"' one. He compares coal power to nuclear, saying that if there were a technology that "allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it."

Green Jobs unfortunately, are a lie.quote>

That's a pretty broad statement, and patently false on several facets. I'll take it with a grain of salt and continue...

Thats not to say we need them, we need people to put solar panels, make the wind turbines, etc, and we already do have people doing that in many places. That can even be expanded to cover more areas that they are needed, solar can do very good. But such green jobs won't cover a large part of our job losses from the death of our industrial sector. While it is to be expected that once the wind farm is done, there will be nothing left for the factory to do. So in order to keep employment sustainable, we won't see 100 factories popping up.quote>

Right, I said "revitalize" and not "replace." The struggling auto industry failed because it stopped making cars that made sense. Our fuel economy standards have not changed in nearly 30 years. Gas prices went up, Hummer sales went down. Foreign competition is what killed a large part of our manufacturing industry, in addition to trade deficits, markets, and financial crises.

But the main study I'm looking at, http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf , involves Spain and there Green jobs projects, which our President has praised, is possible losing 2.2 jobs were every 1 green job they make. Or they lose 9 for every 4 jobs. 1/10 of such jobs are considered 'sustainable' in that they run or maintain the power plant or something as such. While at the same time it took Spain and huge amount of money to make such jobs, and subsidies for the wind industry, as well other industries are a lot.quote>

The quote you are referring to is this one:

Optimistically treating European Commission partially funded data, we find

that for every renewable energy job that the State manages to finance, Spain’s

experience cited by President Obama as a model reveals with high confidence,

by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs

on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add

those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would

have created.quote>

Some things to note is that the study extracts it's data from state projects. The study does not factor in the investments of the private sector (of Spain.)

Finding positive information about green jobs is easy, such as the 2009 Global Trends in Sustainable Energy Investment report, that have some interesting facts as well, such as the finding that "investment in the sustainable energy market has in some ways defied the global recession growing by around five per cent—from $148

billion in 2007 to around $155 billion in 2008." (http://sefi.unep.org/fileadmin/media/sefi/docs/publications/Executive_Summary_2009_EN.pdf)

Even simple investments by private companies can have a large impact, such as replacing their corporate fleet with electric hybrids, saving money on fuel (and less carbon produced) while supporting the auto industry.

We could go back and forth all day, citing contradictory reports, but the fact is that green jobs make more sense than the job creation itself; they invest in a clean, environmentally friendly infrastructure, one that is more energy efficient and saves money in the long run.

Now that is not to say we will be exactly like Europe, or Spain, But we could expect a similar effect.quote>

Most of Europe is much more socialist than we are, and government funded projects are much more prevalent. They subsidize everything there. There are definitely pros and cons to both forms of government as it applies to environmental policy.

The end result would be less jobs, less sustainable jobs, and higher energy and gas prices. Seeing as America is bigger than Spain ( and me having no idea on Spanish mining and energy industry's.) we could expect a huge loss of employment in our surviving industries, such as coal. Many areas will be hit hard, and energy prices will increase.quote>

I think that has yet to be seen, and that there is a lot more to discuss on these issues than to assume that failure is the only possible outcome.

[Ntq€310 1]

Obama states that the idea of an energy system with no coal is "an illusion" and that the bankruptcy would be caused over time by the "ratcheted-down caps that are imposed every year." This money would then be used to fund alternative energy sources, dictated by the market as to what direction to go for alternative energy. He then states that the notion to take coal "off the table" is an "ideological"' one. He compares coal power to nuclear, saying that if there were a technology that "allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it."quote>

So a slow painful bankruptcy of job layoffs, increasing energy prices, and at one point or another closing will be better than it just closing? Energy developers aren’t watching for the price of carbon to pass the magical point at which clean coal or solar or whatever becomes cost-competitive. Rather, they’re looking ahead many years, performing scenario analysis, comparing cash flows, and making investments accordingly, they are not going to invest in a industry that is going to face a end at one point or another.

While at the same time this isn't waiting until we have a easy way to make Coal more friendly to use. Futuregen # a clean coal power plant that puts what little it produces into the ground #, a project very close to me, is no where near starting, and it's years upon years if not a decade away from fully starting. The massive changes in the market that are expected are just not there. So it's expected that coal areas will be hit very hard.

Some things to note is that the study extracts it's data from state projects. The study does not factor in the investments of the private sector #of Spain.#

Finding positive information about green jobs is easy, such as the 2009 Global Trends in Sustainable Energy Investment report, that have some interesting facts as well, such as the finding that "investment in the sustainable energy market has in some ways defied the global recession growing by around five per cent—from $148

billion in 2007 to around $155 billion in 2008."  (http://sefi.unep.org/fileadmin/media/sefi/docs/publications/Executive_Summary_2009_EN.pdf)

Even simple investments by private companies can have a large impact, such as replacing their corporate fleet with electric hybrids, saving money on fuel (and less carbon produced) while supporting the auto industry.  quote>

Most of the 155 Billion came from a government, and with all western government's so interested in green energy, it's expected. Which thats good, it's good that government's are trying to become cleaner, and that companies are trying to become cleaner, that in itself creates demand for Green jobs.

However, like everything, it all comes back to the economy, and employment. That report did not mention much about green jobs. Having such heavy investment and movement of capital on the government's part is not good for the job market at large, and in a cascade effect of cap and trade as well other forces you could expect more job loss than job creation because of this.

We could go back and forth all day, citing contradictory reports, but the fact is that green jobs make more sense than the job creation itself; they invest in a clean, environmentally friendly infrastructure, one that is more energy efficient and saves money in the long run.quote>

It does, and we should be going towards a better environment, and more energy efficient buildings and things. How we get there is the 1 Million dollar question.

[duack 14]

Okay, Ill begin by saying that I think global warming is real and a 4 degree rise is probable. However, I think the words "green jobs" is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Its just a political tool that people think is good but really makes no sense economically. Normally I would be for micro-economic reform but not in this case. The point of micro-economic reform is to try and reduce costs, not increase them until environmentally-friendly alternatives are more competitive. (Im against anything that increases costs, short-term or long-term).

Why I think economic reform into *sigh* "green jobs" is a bad idea is because it is not necassary just yet. There's still another 40 years of oil and over 100 years of coal and gas left in known reserves (who knows what unknown reserves hold).

Also, I took a look at the 4 degrees warmer map someone put up earlier in a link and I dont see the negative. Even if this extreme scenario occured, more farming land is created in Canada than is lost in Europe and the US put together. (Being allied, you'd expect Canada would be more likely to allow the US and EU to produce food there than other countries). Basically, its like control is shifting to western countries (and Russia). And you wouldn't need entire citioes to move to the fertile areas, just agricultural production.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: duack

Why I think economic reform into *sigh* "green jobs" is a bad idea is because it is not necassary just yet. There's still another 40 years of oil and over 100 years of coal and gas left in known reserves (who knows what unknown reserves hold).quote>

More than 300 years worth of coal in the US alone, actually.

But oil is really more the problem. You can't run cars or jet planes off of coal, and running out of oil is far more pressing. We'll no longer be pumping enough of it for it to be a viable energy source within the lifetimes of some people here.

And seeing as the transition to being "green" isn't going to happen overnight... better to get started on it sooner rather than later because if we wait until it's necessary, it'll be too late to accomplish it in time.

Yes, it may cost us more now, but it will save us money, as well as hassle and misery, in the long term. It is unwise and short-sighted to reap benefits in the present at the expense of the future.

We're already taking steps in the right direction with green buildings (LEED) and more efficient cars. The more improvements we can make, the better. Some "green jobs" are necessary for such things. Obviously we can't sustain our entire economy on them any more than a man can survive on just bread and water, but the point is some, not none. A sufficient amount.

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: Ntq$310

So a slow painful bankruptcy of job layoffs, increasing energy prices, and at one point or another closing will be better than it just closing?quote>

Your statement alone assumes that the a cap and trade plan on carbon emissions, specifically regarding coal, will actually lead to those things. The reality is there is lots of evidence going either way on the impacts of such legislation, let alone what watered-down version makes it to the President's desk.

Energy developers aren’t watching for the price of carbon to pass the magical point at which clean coal or solar or whatever becomes cost-competitive. Rather, they’re looking ahead many years, performing scenario analysis, comparing cash flows, and making investments accordingly, they are not going to invest in a industry that is going to face a end at one point or another.quote>

Even more incentive to invest in renewables rather than fossil fuels. The very discussion of the environment itself is what spurred these companies to make the small investments they already have.

While at the same time this isn't waiting until we have a easy way to make Coal more friendly to use. Futuregen # a clean coal power plant that puts what little it produces into the ground #, a project very close to me, is no where near starting, and it's years upon years if not a decade away from fully starting. The massive changes in the market that are expected are just not there. So it's expected that coal areas will be hit very hard.quote>

There is no such thing as clean coal. It's not even close to being technologically feasible, let along economically so. The DOE has actually pulled funding from the FutureGen project altogether, citing higher than expected costs.

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2014

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1870599,00.html

http://www.greenpeace.org/seasia/en/campaigns/climate-change/climate-impacts/coal/the-clean-coal-myth

If there were actually such a thing as clean coal, it's benefits would be echoed across universities, think tanks, and the environmental and scientific communities. The truth is quite the opposite. Even if it were a reality, the energy industry would scrambling to make it work; coal is our most abundant natural fossil fuel resource. The phrase "clean coal" was invented by the coal industry itself.

It may even do more harm than good:

http://www.awwa.org/publications/MainStreamArticle.cfm?itemnumber=39815

Renewables and/or nuclear are the best case scenarios for energy production in the modern era.

Most of the 155 Billion came from a government, and with all western government's so interested in green energy, it's expected. Which thats good, it's good that government's are trying to become cleaner, and that companies are trying to become cleaner, that in itself creates demand for Green jobs.

However, like everything, it all comes back to the economy, and employment. That report did not mention much about green jobs. Having such heavy investment and movement of capital on the government's part is not good for the job market at large, and in a cascade effect of cap and trade as well other forces you could expect more job loss than job creation because of this.quote>

The only thing I can say in response is that we can not rely on green jobs alone to replace those that may be lost, and I never purported that we should. I just don't think that the idea of green job is "a lie."

It does, and we should be going towards a better environment, and more energy efficient buildings and things. How we get there is the 1 Million dollar question.quote>

Can't disagree with that! 

Originally posted by: duack

Okay, Ill begin by saying that I think global warming is real and a 4 degree rise is probable. However, I think the words "green jobs" is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Its just a political tool that people think is good but really makes no sense economically. Normally I would be for micro-economic reform but not in this case. The point of micro-economic reform is to try and reduce costs, not increase them until environmentally-friendly alternatives are more competitive. (Im against anything that increases costs, short-term or long-term).quote>

So people who are for green jobs are for increasing costs? Most green projects that have been undertaken are done so with the idea of saving money over the long-term.

Why I think economic reform into *sigh* "green jobs" is a bad idea is because it is not necassary just yet. There's still another 40 years of oil and over 100 years of coal and gas left in known reserves (who knows what unknown reserves hold). quote>

Thats another 100 years worth of pollution, too. So, your plan is to wait until the last minute, until the last drop of oil is sold, to start working on an alternative solution?

Also, I took a look at the 4 degrees warmer map someone put up earlier in a link and I dont see the negative. Even if this extreme scenario occured, more farming land is created in Canada than is lost in Europe and the US put together. (Being allied, you'd expect Canada would be more likely to allow the US and EU to produce food there than other countries). Basically, its like control is shifting to western countries (and Russia). And you wouldn't need entire citioes to move to the fertile areas, just agricultural production.quote>

Are you actually suggesting that the displacement and/or death of millions of people is not a negative? What about increased fluctuations in violent weather patterns? How about the decimation of entire swaths of species? 

[sneakeypete 16]

Originally posted by: Duke87

More than 300 years worth of coal in the US alone, actually.

quote>

Wasn't that 300 figure published in the 80's, and not accounting for any growth in usage of coal?

Actually, a very quick check of wikipedia says that its about 130 years at the current rate, but that current rate is growing at 2-3% a year, and with growth taken account for, coal reserves are likely to run out in 60 years.

Please people, check your facts. Not everything published is up to date or entirely truthful!

[duack 14]

So people who are for green jobs are for increasing costs? Most green projects that have been undertaken are done so with the idea of saving money over the long-term. quote>

True, but most kinds of government intervention (besides welfare) can cause serious damage to the economy. I think this is one of those kinds because it perverts the forces of demand and supply without achieving any real positive. Kind of like tariffs.

Thats another 100 years worth of pollution, too. So, your plan is to wait until the last minute, until the last drop of oil is sold, to start working on an alternative solution? quote>

No, the last drop of oil wont ever be sold. As oil supply gradually decreases, prices will gradually rise and eventually it will become cheaper to use alternatives like peanut oil or ethanol. These already exist now, but right now oil is cheaper so oil should be used.

Why I say the last drop of oil wont ever be sold is because its rudicolously expensive to even bother pumping the last drop of crude out of the ground that nobody would do it. They'd switch to alternatives.

This has happened several times throughout history, shortages of ivory led to the invention of plastic as an example.

Are you actually suggesting that the displacement and/or death of millions of people is not a negative? quote>

 

This has happened all throughout the past and is happening right now. What's the difference if it happens in the future?

  What about increased fluctuations in violent weather patterns? quote>

That's what I call environmental propoganda. There's no way of actually telling if weather patterns are becoming more violent because there's no unit of measurement for it. But what everyone knows is that violent weather and fluctuations are normal and have been happening since the earth formed. It just seems worse now because there are more people on earth now than there was before so you'd expect death tolls and damage from storms to be higher now than before.

How about the decimation of entire swaths of species? quote>

One word: evolution. The species that die will be replaced by fitter ones. This has always happened and will continue to happen in the future. It pains me when I see environmentalists who want to keep everything as it is now becuase that is unnatural. What's really dumb is when you see idiot rangers and vets saving injured animals after bushfires, because thay're practically saving the weakest animals, the ones that are supposed to die out. Did these people not have to do a biology course?

 

[Ntq€310 1]

Originally posted by: schm0

Your statement alone assumes that the a cap and trade plan on carbon emissions, specifically regarding coal, will actually lead to those things. The reality is there is lots of evidence going either way on the impacts of such legislation, let alone what watered-down version makes it to the President's desk. quote>

Hopefully no version lands on his desk. Because any version that passes will be nothing but a job killing, pollution causing, expensive bill.

Even more incentive to invest in renewables rather than fossil fuels. The very discussion of the environment itself is what spurred these companies to make the small investments they already have. quote>

Actually, your wrong. These companies are moving there investments to other places because the industry there based in is going to be killed, not because of 'talk on the environment'. Six coal plants were scuttled recently because of the fact that the Industry's future is being called into question so much. That cost jobs.

There is no such thing as clean coal. It's not even close to being technologically feasible, let along economically so. The DOE has actually pulled funding from the FutureGen project altogether, citing higher than expected costs.quote>

Incase you have not heard, the DOE restarted the project, and recently it's even closer to being a reality. But you are right, Coal can never truly be 'clean' but there are ways to make it, and other gases, less polluting. Furthering developing better use of Fuels we Have in the United States can do nothing but help the environment, and economy.

If there were actually such a thing as clean coal, it's benefits would be echoed across universities, think tanks, and the environmental and scientific communities. The truth is quite the opposite. Even if it were a reality, the energy industry would scrambling to make it work; coal is our most abundant natural fossil fuel resource. The phrase "clean coal" was invented by the coal industry itself.

It may even do more harm than good:

http://www.awwa.org/publications/MainStreamArticle.cfm?itemnumber=39815 ( Link don't work )

Renewables and/or nuclear are the best case scenarios for energy production in the modern era.
quote>

It would be horrible of us to not use fuels and resources that we can produce domestically within our own lands, instead of further importing more and causing more pollution elsewhere. This seems to be the biggest difference in this discussion, you want to destroy the coal industry, I don't. You think coal should not be used as a fuel, i do.

Besides, clean energy production is no where near the level where it can support the United States, other forms such as Nuclear are still very stalled. So, unless we want to create a full blown energy crisis as well sky rocketing prices on all energy use which hurt the economy and the average American family, I would not kill coal.

The only thing I can say in response is that we can not rely on green jobs alone to replace those that may be lost, and I never purported that we should. I just don't think that the idea of green job is "a lie." quote>

I would call them a Lie since it takes the government pushing for them and killing other jobs in order to create them. The Green market should be left to develop on it's own.

Thats another 100 years worth of pollution, too. So, your plan is to wait until the last minute, until the last drop of oil is sold, to start working on an alternative solution?quote>

I do think we should use the fuels that are available to use, such as coal, oil, and natural gas. Who says we have to wait until those dry up that we have to look for a solution? we can look for solutions to carry us on once those are done and use those fuels until there done at the same time.
 

[astronelson 339]

Originally posted by: duack

So people who are for green jobs are for increasing costs? Most green projects that have been undertaken are done so with the idea of saving money over the long-term. quote>

True, but most kinds of government intervention (besides welfare) can cause serious damage to the economy. I think this is one of those kinds because it perverts the forces of demand and supply without achieving any real positive. Kind of like tariffs.quote>

Rising sea levels are pretty economically damaging too. Even if it is not as bad as scientific consensus (or near-consensus) will have it, safety nets are generally good ideas.

Thats another 100 years worth of pollution, too. So, your plan is to wait until the last minute, until the last drop of oil is sold, to start working on an alternative solution? quote>

No, the last drop of oil wont ever be sold. As oil supply gradually decreases, prices will gradually rise and eventually it will become cheaper to use alternatives like peanut oil or ethanol. These already exist now, but right now oil is cheaper so oil should be used.

Why I say the last drop of oil wont ever be sold is because its rudicolously expensive to even bother pumping the last drop of crude out of the ground that nobody would do it. They'd switch to alternatives.

This has happened several times throughout history, shortages of ivory led to the invention of plastic as an example.quote>

I'll not debate what led to the invention of plastics (interestingly, a petroleum by-product), but, the fact something is cheaper does not automatically suggest it should be used. McDonalds is cheaper than healthy food, so should I eat only Mcdonalds?

Are you actually suggesting that the displacement and/or death of millions of people is not a negative? quote>

 

This has happened all throughout the past and is happening right now. What's the difference if it happens in the future?quote>

Lots. In the past, the population of the earth was much smaller, and the amount of available arable land was much higher. Now, the amount of arable land has decreased. Losing any more to cities built to house environmental refugees would be disastrous.

  What about increased fluctuations in violent weather patterns? quote>

That's what I call environmental propoganda. There's no way of actually telling if weather patterns are becoming more violent because there's no unit of measurement for it. But what everyone knows is that violent weather and fluctuations are normal and have been happening since the earth formed. It just seems worse now because there are more people on earth now than there was before so you'd expect death tolls and damage from storms to be higher now than before.quote>

I debate that point. There is, for one, the unit that measures the intensity of cyclones. There have been more category 5 (the strongest) in recent years than at any time in recorded history. So, cyclones are becoming more violent.

How about the decimation of entire swaths of species? quote>

One word: evolution. The species that die will be replaced by fitter ones. This has always happened and will continue to happen in the future. It pains me when I see environmentalists who want to keep everything as it is now becuase that is unnatural. What's really dumb is when you see idiot rangers and vets saving injured animals after bushfires, because thay're practically saving the weakest animals, the ones that are supposed to die out. Did these people not have to do a biology course?quote>

Fine, I can wait millions of years for species to evolve to replace the ones we're losing now. And there are no animals that can survive a bushfire. What the 'idiot' rangers and vets are doing are saving any animals they can. We caused this stuff, we should do our best to minimise the effects. Do you object to immunization? All that does is saves the people who do not have the strongest immune systems: the ones who, according to you, are 'supposed to die out'.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: sneakeypete

Wasn't that 300 figure published in the 80's, and not accounting for any growth in usage of coal?

Actually, a very quick check of wikipedia says that its about 130 years at the current rate, but that current rate is growing at 2-3% a year, and with growth taken account for, coal reserves are likely to run out in 60 years.quote>

My source on the 300 years figure is my profesor from Environmental Engineering Principles II. He could be wrong, but he's an expert on this stuff, so I trust him.

Originally posted by: astronelson

the fact something is cheaper does not automatically suggest it should be used. McDonalds is cheaper than healthy food, so should I eat only Mcdonalds?quote>

I get what you're saying here, but one problem: McDonalds isn't cheaper than healthy food. It may be cheaper than healthier restaurants, but the cheapest way to feed yourself is to buy groceries at the supermarket and prepare them yourself.

A better, simpler example, though: butter is cheaper than margarine. However, it's got more saturated fat and trans fatty acids, so by no means is it healthier.

[fukuda 351]

What's really dumb is when you see idiot rangers and vets saving injured animals after bushfires, because thay're practically saving the weakest animals, the ones that are supposed to die out. Did these people not have to do a biology course?quote>

Protecting the habitat is their job. Centennial forests can be wiped out of the map in just a day, they won't be completely recovered after at least an entire century. It's not a problem of being weak or strong...

And there are no animals that can survive a bushfirequote>

There are some but they're mostly invertebrates

Fire does help some forests(australia, southern europe) as their trees resist fire and use it to spread their seeds, but they're usually forests growing on poor grounds and with a low biodiversity

[Duke87 1,070]

Also consider that while forest fires do occur naturally, often they start due to human action. Someone tosses a glowing cigarette butt to the side of the road into dry brush, a group of campers neglect to properly extinguish their campfire, etc.

In these cases, just letting it burn is hardly "natural" since, "naturally", the fire should never even have started in the first place.

And while you can make the survival of the fittest argument about just letting forests burn, the problem is that these forests are not devoid of human habitations and will burn people's homes and kill people if given the chance.

[sneakeypete 16]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: sneakeypete

Wasn't that 300 figure published in the 80's, and not accounting for any growth in usage of coal?

Actually, a very quick check of wikipedia says that its about 130 years at the current rate, but that current rate is growing at 2-3% a year, and with growth taken account for, coal reserves are likely to run out in 60 years.quote>

My source on the 300 years figure is my profesor from Environmental Engineering Principles II. He could be wrong, but he's an expert on this stuff, so I trust him.

quote>

Well could you ask him where he gets his stats on? If we used half of the amount of coal we do per year, and without growth in demand, perhpas, but i don't see it lasting anywhere close to 300 years.

From what i've been reading, the differences in time have come from differences in the definition in the amount of reserves vs recoverable reserves, as well as some people using out of date consumption figures (usually to manipulate the result), and no factoring into account the growth of the coal consumpion rate. (which is important, as in another 30 years we'll be using double the amount of coal that we are now, at the current growth rate). As far as i know, the often cited 300 year figure came from a report in the 90's that was done by a coal company (eg, they have a vested interest in saying it'll last a long time), and they didn't take into account growth

300 years and 60 years are two very very different numbers when it comes to planning for the future.

 www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdf is a good paper on the subject.

edit: weird link formatting on this forum.

[duack 14]

Rising sea levels are pretty economically damaging too. Even if it is not as bad as scientific consensus (or near-consensus) will have it, safety nets are generally good ideas. quote>

Its hardly worth abrubtly stunting economic growth now to try and prevent rising sea levels because first off, sea levels are going to rise anyway and anything we do know wont take effect for hundreds of years. Secondly, if sea levels gradually rise and damage infrastructure over hundreds of years there is less of a cost to be borne than if taxes were imposed on production.

I'll not debate what led to the invention of plastics (interestingly, a petroleum by-product), but, the fact something is cheaper does not automatically suggest it should be used. McDonalds is cheaper than healthy food, so should I eat only Mcdonalds? quote>

In what way did I even imply that? My point is that alternatives exist and are invented all the time. Just because something is needed now doesn't mean it always will be.

Lots. In the past, the population of the earth was much smaller, and the amount of available arable land was much higher. Now, the amount of arable land has decreased. Losing any more to cities built to house environmental refugees would be disastrous. quote>

Actually, more usable arable land is available today than at any other time. Before, very little of the "empty land" was arable land. Furthermore, land is only one of the resources used in production and also one of the most wasted. Your second statement about environmental refugees only shows a lack of understanding about land use because if needed, density can be increased to use much less land. Also, cities don't have to be built on fertile land.

I debate that point. There is, for one, the unit that measures the intensity of cyclones. There have been more category 5 (the strongest) in recent years than at any time in recorded history. So, cyclones are becoming more violent. quote>

Give me a source and I'll believe you.

Fine, I can wait millions of years for species to evolve to replace the ones we're losing now. quote>

Evolution occurs much faster than most people believe. Especially when there is mass extinction.

And there are no animals that can survive a bushfire. What the 'idiot' rangers and vets are doing are saving any animals they can. quote>

Even if this is true, what's the point of saving animals and re-releasing them back into the wild when their food sources are diminished? You'd still be losing many animals.

We caused this stuff, we should do our best to minimise the effects quote>

Yes, British settlers have been causing bushfires in Australia for the past few million years, turning it into the second driest continent on Earth.

Do you object to immunization? All that does is saves the people who do not have the strongest immune systems: the ones who, according to you, are 'supposed to die out'. quote>

No. the laws of natural selection don't apply to humans.

Centennial forests can be wiped out of the map in just a day, they won't be completely recovered after at least an entire century. quote>

Okay, let's turn every piece of land on Earth into an old growth forest. Because that's how we found it right?

Also consider that while forest fires do occur naturally, often they start due to human action. Someone tosses a glowing cigarette butt to the side of the road into dry brush, a group of campers neglect to properly extinguish their campfire, etc.

In these cases, just letting it burn is hardly "natural" since, "naturall", the fire should never even have started. quote>

This is probably the only feasable argument I've read. However, if a fire occurs today, one will be prevented tommorow. So the source of ignition isn't as important as the fire itself. The problem is humans tend to cause fires to often, changing the biodiversity of an area. I know in Australia, areas of bushland are intentionally burned every spring to prevent future fires particularly around urban areas. This prevents the growth of larger species like Eucalypts, however its better than having a fire reach an urban area.

But I bet environmental nuts would rather see 50,000 houses burn down than 50,000 trees...

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: sneakeypete

Well could you ask him where he gets his stats on? quote>

Considering there's no class during the summer so I'm not going to see him for a while, no, not now.

Originally posted by: duack

sea levels are going to rise anywayquote>

Maybe, maybe not. We don't have enough of an understanding to declare that.

and anything we do know wont take effect for hundreds of years.quote>

Perhaps, but is it worth preserving our economy now at the expense of destroying it in the future? Or is it better to find a balance point between the two?

Secondly, if sea levels gradually rise and damage infrastructure over hundreds of years there is less of a cost to be borne than if taxes were imposed on production.quote>

Can you back that up with some numbers and a source or two?

No. the laws of natural selection don't apply to humans.quote>

We can work against them by protecting and preserving the weak and less fit, but that still requires working against them and it's hardly perfect. Stupid people will still do stupid things and get themselves killed. People who are screwups will still screw things up.

The laws of natural selection still apply to us just as the laws of gravity still apply to us. We can fly using airplanes and other such things, but some will still fail and crash no matter how safe we make them.

Centennial forests can be wiped out of the map in just a day, they won't be completely recovered after at least an entire century. quote>

Okay, let's turn every piece of land on Earth into an old growth forest. Because that's how we found it right?quote>

Obviously, the opposite extreme of just cutting everything down willy-nilly isn't a good one, either. We're not going to preserve everything, but it's still in our best interest to preserve some of it.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

*Bump*

You can put this into the "I told you so" file...

No temperature increases in the last 11 years? Solar charged particles affecting global temps more than greenhouse gasses? Here yah go...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

Remember the IPCC? Quote: "Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years".

So much for that 'we're at the tipping point' crap.