or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Global warming becomes even harder to deny...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Global warming becomes even harder to deny... - Page 7

post #241 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
The Mercedes NECAR series are specifically tuned to negligible CO2 output.

That is a fuel cell vehicle - it produces less CO2 because it does not use gas. As I said before, this will not affect global warming, because every drop of oil pumped gets burned.

To demonstrate what I wanted you to demonstrate, you would have to find two cars which produce different amounts of CO2 while burning the same amount of gas - which you will not find.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #242 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
But I do think you have a good point: I doubt we can reverse the overall trend of growth in the consumption of oil.

But that doesn't justify not trying. We can theorize about how nothing's going to make a difference, or we can actually try collectively making a difference.

Buying a Hummer is not the answer.
post #243 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
I'm sure no expert on this, but I am sure I've heard how OPEC has decided to increase or decrease output at various times. The only thing I ever hear about OPEC is how they've decided to increase or decrease their output quotas. And if US oil consumption decreased by, say, 10%, don't you think OPEC would respond by decreasing their output in order to keep prices from going lower?

But I do think you have a good point: I doubt we can reverse the overall trend of growth in the consumption of oil. All we can do is put off peak oil as long as possible while we try to develop new technologies to deal with it. In that sense, investing in that technology now is helpful. The primary motivator for new technologies is going to be oil price, and oil price is clearly going to be on an upward trend. But let's invest in the technology now, while gas prices are still not too bad.

If you think that we can get the price of gas below $40, then you are all right, and conservation will result in less gas being pumped. In order to believe that, though, you have to ignore a lot of evidence that says that we are running out of oil.

I don't think that we could conserve enough to ever get it down to $40 again, I think that $300 is much more likely than $40. All the OPEC countries bumped up their reserve numbers when they joined, so they could get a bigger piece of the quota pie - you can't trust their published reserve numbers.

BTW - one way to help global warming is to invade the middle east, and set up a greenie dictatorship enforcing oil quotas. You would need to get Russia and Venesuala as well, though.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #244 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
But that doesn't justify not trying. We can theorize about how nothing's going to make a difference, or we can actually try collectively making a difference.

Buying a Hummer is not the answer.

If you put off buying a Hummer, all that happens is that China uses the oil to produce more barbie dolls or launches another TV sattelite. I just don't see why one consumer vice matters more than the other.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #245 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
I just don't see why one consumer vice matters more than the other.

Which effectively says you don't believe in the power of the individual, and, as such, not in democracy.
post #246 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
But that doesn't justify not trying. We can theorize about how nothing's going to make a difference, or we can actually try collectively making a difference.

Buying a Hummer is not the answer.

Yes, I agree with you.
post #247 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
Which effectively says you don't believe in the power of the individual, and, as such, not in democracy.

what?

Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Yes, I agree with you.

You shouldn't - even if we got oil down to $40, and caused OPEC to pump less than 100%, the low price of oil would have the side effect of killing any alternative energy funding and research.

In the end, the effect is the same - individual consumption has no effect on global warming, no matter what you buy, the ice melts in the end.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #248 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
what?

The whole premise of your argument here is that an individual cannot make a difference. You're stating that even if we were to try cutting down on oil use, some random person in East Asia would balance it out by using more oil.

That's quite a fatalistic view, and one that doesn't show faith in sovereignty of the people, i.e. democracy.
post #249 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
The whole premise of your argument here is that an individual cannot make a difference. You're stating that even if we were to try cutting down on oil use, some random person in East Asia would balance it out by using more oil.

That's quite a fatalistic view, and one that doesn't show faith in sovereignty of the people, i.e. democracy.

People can make a difference in politics, but not global warming. In fact - democracy is part of the problem. If we had a totalitarian world dictatorship, we could solve global warming - the trick is restricting the freedom to burn gas worldwide.

The two situations are totally different, because they are ruled by different gaming rules. Saying a person has power in one game does not mean that they have power in another game with different rules - i.e. what you are saying makes no sense.

I am fatalistic about global warming because that is the rational view for that situation. I am an optimist in general, just not on that topic.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #250 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
Reducing emissions ALWAYS refers to emissions other than CO2. Reducing emissions actually makes global warming worse, because it reduces global dimming, reducing CO2 emissions via scrubbers is worthwhile, but expensive (and companies with extra expenses tend to die in a competitive market).

Other than CO2? According to who? Global dimming has indeed served as a small cushion to the full impact of global warming. That only means that global warming is an even bigger problem than we think. Global dimming through air pollutants such as sulphur compounds, soot and ash also creates many health problems and may even cause droughts. In other words, we need to take care of global warming which means burning less fossil fuels among other things. Speaking of CO2, there's one giant company that I know of working on trees and plants that absorb higher quantities of CO2. The name of the company is Toyota. So companies are becoming more aggressive towards solving the problem. Your problem is that you're unaware of the advances being made all around.
Quote:
Energy independence - great, but does not help global warming.

Sure it does. If you have an energy independent or producing home you won't need "dirty" electricity from coal plants for i.e. You can even power your cool looking and fast electric car when those become available and more affordable. No emissions.
Quote:
alternive fuels - great, but no help with global warming either.

Anything that reduces emissions and burns less oil is part of the solution. W??
Quote:
categories of Prius drivers:
2. People who can't do math thinking that they are saving money
3. People who think that hybrids are cool technology

Nice arguments. My friend has decided to buy a Civic Hybrid over a small SUV. Tell him he's not saving money by opting for a cheaper car that saves him $$ instantly at the pump and tell him that he's not saving money by being able to use the diamond lane while driving alone. Are you basing your silly statement on the consumer report study that compared the Prius to a Corolla?
Quote:
categories of Hummer drivers:
1. Keeping up with the Jonses
2. Think it is cool to have the most capible off road vehicle on the planet.

Unless the Joneses live in the country, why the hell does anyone need the "most capable" off road vehicle to drive around the city to begin with?
post #251 of 278
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
OPEC is pumping at 100%, and will continue to do so as long as the price of oil is over $40/barrel. Oil will never go below $40/barrel again, because we have passed peak oil and are on an exponential demand curve due to 3rd world industrialization.

Therefore, no matter what you do every drop of oil that we can burn we will burn.

The current price of oil, adjusted for inflation, is not all that high historically speaking, and much of the current price is related to the mess in Iraq, other Middle East instability, and the troubled US/Venezuela relationship. We simply aren't seeing the kind of pricing which indicates a large unmet demand. Yes, we'll get there, but currently I don't see signs of the ferocity of unmet demand it would take to ensure the kind of inflexible, consume-every-drop-available demand you claim exists which would make any and all attempts at conservation futile.

Suppose current demand is 105% of current supply. Suppose conservation allows us to burn 20% less fuel. That brings demand down to 85% of supply. What magic formula of supply and demand automatically, unquestionably guarantees the price drop for fuel caused by that drop in demand will ensure demand immediately surges back up to 100% or more of supply?

If we can make really big inroads over the next 10 years via both conservation and alternate fuels, and reduce our demand for oil by say 30-40%, and in that process help provide the rest of the world with products and technologies which make consumption of oil, even if cheaper, less appealing, your "give up, it's no use" attitude makes even less sense.

That kind of conservation would certainly take more than having few SUVs on the road, but that's good start at building the whole collection of little savings which, coupled with a Manhattan Project serious about alternative fuels, could get us there.

Energy costs are only a fraction of the costs of things people do that consume energy. Even at current prices, we're still living in a period of fairly cheap energy. If big energy consumers like the US cut back their demand for oil via conservation and alternative energy, the desire and the capital to buy more cars, buy bigger cars, build new factories, buy air conditioners, etc., etc., which will burn up every drop of oil we save, just because we made that oil a little cheaper, hardly follows automatically or quickly.
Quote:
1. Keeping up with the Jonses
2. Think it is cool to have the most capible off road vehicle on the planet.

Even if I bought your "conservation is hopeless" argument, that still doesn't excuse the stupidity of having so many SUVs on the road. They are wastefully consuming fuel that, if it's going to be used anyway, could be used far more productively.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #252 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Suppose current demand is 105% of current supply. Suppose conservation allows us to burn 20% less fuel. That brings demand down to 85% of supply. What magic formual of supply and demand automatically, unquestionably guarantees the price drop for fuel caused by that drop in demand will ensure demand immediately surges back up to 100% or more of supply?

If supply is greater than demand, the price of oil automatically drops until demand rises once again. In your hypothetical 85% situation, the price of oil would drop and people would start using more very quickly to get it back to 100%. This is how every commodity works.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #253 of 278
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
If supply is greater than demand, the price of oil automatically drops until demand rises once again. In your hypothetical 85% situation, the price of oil would drop and people would start using more very quickly to get it back to 100%. This is how every commodity works.

That's an incredibly over-simplified version of how "every commidity works". The tendency towards equilibrium works on both the supply and the demand side. Demand really can drop in an absolute sense, and if that demand does eventual equal 100% of supply again, it can often be because supply has dropped in response to lower demand.

We're probably burning 100% of the current supply of whale oil too. Guess that means there's no sense in trying to save whales, and the appearances that whale oil isn't a very important commodity like it used to be is just an illusion, because clearly it was impossible to break the world of its whale burning habit.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #254 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
That's an incredibly over-simplified version of how "every commidity works". The tendency towards equilibrium works on both the supply and the demand side. Demand really can drop in an absolute sense, and if that demand does eventual equal 100% of supply again, it can often be because supply has dropped in response to lower demand.

We're probably burning 100% of the current supply of whale oil too. Guess that means there's no sense in trying to save whales, and the appearances that whale oil isn't a very important commodity like it used to be is just an illusion, because clearly it was impossible to break the world of its whale burning habit.

Oil costs $2/barrel to extract - it is so profitable that it takes a global cartel to throttle production. There will be no slacking on the supply side - whale oil is a bad example because it was replaced by something better and cheaper (and you are unlikely to find anything cheaper than petroleum).

On the demand side, not only do we have a growing population, but the 3rd world is becoming wealthy at a rapid clip. We will need 500% as much energy supply in 40 years as we do now, which means no slacking on demand side.

There are also huge amounts of discretionary oil usage - people drive more and factories work more when the price of oil is low. Demand ramps up dramatically to take advantage of low oil prices, as we saw with SUVs and Chineese factories in the 80s and 90s. If you have short term low oil prices, people drive more and more shifts are added at factories. If you have long-term low oil prices, it spurs the creation of new factories and the purchase of larger new cars.

As an aside, it looks like Hummer H3 uses less energy than the Prius, once you count manufacturing and disposal energy use:

http://thewatt.com/article-1070-nested-1-0.html
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #255 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
As an aside, it looks like Hummer H3 uses less energy than the Prius, once you count manufacturing and disposal energy use:

http://thewatt.com/article-1070-nested-1-0.html

Sure it does. Next time post something worth our while. And maybe research the methodology a little....just a little.

Just a couple of things: this "study" is based on assumptions. One that the Prius( you seem to be obsessed with them) will only be driven 100,000 miles.

According to Spinella: "If you can drive the Prius 200,000 miles and do the same levels of cost and repairs, the cost poer mile obviously comes down dramatically."

Plus the Hummer, according to Spinella, looks a lot better than the hybrids because it uses: "crude old technology that has long ago been paid for."
In other words, the cost of Hummers has been amortized while as is the case with new technology, the Hybrids' hasn't yet.


When asked if the results would be different in a few years here's what Spinella said:

"it would be totally different in three years. The hybrids will look significantly better. The new hybrids they are developing nowthe new ones that I've seen, Prius III and Prius IVare so much more simplified. They'll do what the current versions do, but with far less complexity, lighter motors, more recyclable parts, and longer lasting components. The current Prius, for all intents and purposes, will be the Model T."

Nice try....
post #256 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
When asked if the results would be different in a few years here's what Spinella said:

"it would be totally different in three years. The hybrids will look significantly better. The new hybrids they are developing nowthe new ones that I've seen, Prius III and Prius IVare so much more simplified. They'll do what the current versions do, but with far less complexity, lighter motors, more recyclable parts, and longer lasting components. The current Prius, for all intents and purposes, will be the Model T."

Nice try....

But if you bought one TODAY - the Hummer would do less damage to the enviornment than the Prius.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #257 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978 But if you bought one TODAY - the Hummer would do less damage to the enviornment than the Prius.

But but but....you might want to read your very flawed stuff BEFORE you post it next time. Those Hummers must be emission free ...oh wait...
post #258 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
But but but....you might want to read your very flawed stuff BEFORE you post it next time. Those Hummers must be emission free ...oh wait...

The whole point of the study was that cars that sell in low numbers have a much larger environmental impact (hence the high number for the VW Phaeton, for example).

When you combine that with the short life of batteries, the failure of hybrids to get anything close to advertised milage figures, and the high cost of disposal, and it makes the Prius a much less attractive option. Having lower costs due to volume and more advanced future technology lessens that, but not all the way.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #259 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
If supply is greater than demand, the price of oil automatically drops until demand rises once again. In your hypothetical 85% situation, the price of oil would drop and people would start using more very quickly to get it back to 100%. This is how every commodity works.

Except then you add 50 cents extra tax and use all the new money for energy research and to support alternative energy sources.
post #260 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
Except then you add 50 cents extra tax and use all the new money for energy research and to support alternative energy sources.

50 cent tax is per-country only - we would use less due to the tarrif, which would drop the global price, which would enable others to use more. Global oil usage would stay the same, and global warming would move on unhindered.

The success of the new alternative energy sources that you fund with your tax would free us from oil useage, which would drop global oil prices and increase usage, and global warming would march on at the same pace.

We actually benefit quite a good deal from the European gas taxes, it is like they are sending us free gas, which enables us to buy more SUVs (and we do).
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #261 of 278
Everyone focuses on SUVs... what about the fatories that supply our selfish (mine included) lives? They pump out more Co2 and other gunk than most want to imagine, but are harder to attack than the suv sitting in the driveway next door.

Has anyone figured the amount of gases etc produced by the factories and compared it to the SUVs? I have seen maps of acid rain and they tend to follow areas of heavy industry, not pleasure spots where there are more SUVs.

The State of the World Atlas, for one, has acuid rain maps.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #262 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by Bergermeister
are harder to attack than the suv sitting in the driveway next door.

Which is why we're not focusing on them. SUVs are a problem we can work on. Factories? Not so much.
post #263 of 278
OK... then focus as well on other small things that can be done, because eliminating SUVs will only produce a fractional drop in gases (though it would be a start). What about asking all people to adjust their thermostats 1 degree, which would make a huge impact and can be done by everyone, not just by singling out one small group of people who choose to drive SUVs. Diesel buses and trucks are probably worse than SUVs and are something we can do something about.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #264 of 278
Why don't we just increase the price of fuel/oil/gasoline?
post #265 of 278
I'd love for that to happen. Unfortunately, most people would hate it.
post #266 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
The success of the new alternative energy sources that you fund with your tax would free us from oil useage, which would drop global oil prices and increase usage, and global warming would march on at the same pace.

The hope is for alternative sources to be less hazardous to the planet. If that means they must be cheaper than oil on a global scale, then it is indeed a lofty goal, but one that we can't afford to fail.

Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Why don't we just increase the price of fuel/oil/gasoline?

In macro econ 101, they told me increasing the price leads to decreased consumption. If the US does increase the price and decrease consumption, OPEC would then have a surplus, and its in their interest to sell that surplus. So, they look for someone to buy it and possibly sell it cheaper to make it move. Someone else then burns through what we might have. Effectively, its just shifting the problem. In order to attack oil, we have to attack global oil demand. Like take over OPEC and hike the prices at the source.

Or we could approach it from a non-economic standpoint. Proclaim the inevitability of global warming, due largely to oil consumption, and prove to the world the calamity thats ahead. If people genuinely believe that warming is a result of oil and pollution, globally there might be a stronger effort to come up with safer alternatives.
post #267 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by thuh Freak
In macro econ 101, they told me increasing the price leads to decreased consumption.

Not to pick nits...but, I believe, that should have been micro-econonmics.

Quote:
Originally posted by thuh Freak
If the US does increase the price and decrease consumption, OPEC would then have a surplus, and its in their interest to sell that surplus. So, they look for someone to buy it and possibly sell it cheaper to make it move. Someone else then burns through what we might have. Effectively, its just shifting the problem. In order to attack oil, we have to attack global oil demand.

Which is exactly the point that e#s is trying (in vain it seems) to make.

And, short of the global dictatorship, this seems unlikely.

P.S. The price of oil has been increasing (globally) so this should be welcome news for any global warming, oil-dependence, etc. folks. Unfortunately, many have been blinded by the "trees" of oil company profits and (unproveable) "price gouging" to see the "forest" of incentives for conservation and alternative fuel sources. Of course...as soon as implementation of those (conservation and alternative fuel sources) kicks in...demand goes down... and prices along with it...returning us (relatively promptly) to "square one".
post #268 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Not to pick nits...but, I believe, that should have been micro-econonmics.

na, i took macro. macro was supposed to be easier than micro. trying to think larger scale anyway, bro.

Quote:
Which is exactly the point that e#s is trying (in vain it seems) to make.

And, short of the global dictatorship, this seems unlikely.

well, i partly agree with e# on this. though i hold more hope for alt energy.
we dont need a global dictatorship, we'd only need to convince OPEC that its in their interest to artificially decrease production, to the detriment of their profits, but to the benefit of mankind. my understanding of that organization is that its not very friendly to western advice, but that still seems more likely than a global benevolent overlord. if we can teach the world about the facts of global warming, the world can put pressure on OPEC to decrease production, or the world could otherwise decrease their own consumption.

Quote:
P.S. The price of oil has been increasing (globally) so this should be welcome news for any global warming, oil-dependence, etc. folks. Unfortunately, many have been blinded by the "trees" of oil company profits and (unproveable) "price gouging" to see the "forest" of incentives for conservation and alternative fuel sources. Of course...as soon as implementation of those (conservation and alternative fuel sources) kicks in...demand goes down... and prices along with it...returning us (relatively promptly) to "square one".

the increased cost of gas is a good thing, in a way, but it still feels really crappy for a billionaire to ask me to pay for another story onto his mansion [especially, when in my estimation, he could live just a lavish a lifestyle and share more with his employees]. also, increasing price is assumed to directly correlate to decreased demand (ie, consumption). that only holds, iirc, if the price already represents the customer's complete wallet. idk, but i've heard that americans can stand to actually pay more at the pump before affecting consumption (actually, i think i've heard both: that we could afford more to pay more, and that we've already affected consumption).
post #269 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by thuh Freak
na, i took macro. macro was supposed to be easier than micro. trying to think larger scale anyway, bro.

k...cept that macro is kind of "black magic and voo doo" compared with micro.


Quote:
Originally posted by thuh Freak
we'd only need to convince OPEC that its in their interest to artificially decrease production, to the detriment of their profits, but to the benefit of mankind.

That's a good one. But what's more, it will likely have the opposite effect. If they decrease production (in the face of static or increasing demand), prices will naturally elevate actually increasing their profits...so that might make the argument work. Whatever you try to convince OPEC to do will have to make economic sense and not reduce their profits.

Quote:
Originally posted by thuh Freak
if we can teach the world about the facts of global warming, the world can put pressure on OPEC to decrease production, or the world could otherwise decrease their own consumption.

If you work the demand side ("decrease their own consumption") you'll get the opposite effect you are hoping for.

Quote:
Originally posted by thuh Freak
but it still feels really crappy for a billionaire to ask me to pay for another story onto his mansion [especially, when in my estimation, he could live just a lavish a lifestyle and share more with his employees].

You'll have to find some way to deal with this I guess. It is the reality...and not necessarily a bad one. Remember...look at the bigger picture. A couple of oil execs getting a lot of $ isn't the big picture.

Quote:
Originally posted by thuh Freak
idk, but i've heard that americans can stand to actually pay more at the pump before affecting consumption

This is almost certainly true for two reasons...first, oil and retail gas prices are still below historical highs (in real terms) so we are still getting relatively cheap oil and gas. Second...due (at least in part) to two previous oil crunches...we have become much more efficient in our use of oil. Heck even most SUVs of today are not quite as bad as "gas guzzlers" of the past. But it isn't just there...industry too. Of course there is also a "lag" (people don't just go out and trade-in their SUVs at the first price hiccup). I am guessing that it won't be until we hit $4-5/gallon that it begins to truly affect consumption behavior.
post #270 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by thuh Freak
we'd only need to convince OPEC that its in their interest to artificially decrease production, to the detriment of their profits, but to the benefit of mankind.

Voters in the US will lynch any politician that tried to do this, even if he had the power to do it. Remember the news complaints about high gas after Katrina?

It would also require extensive military campaigns in the middle east, and probably further military campaigns against all the other developed countries that we would be depriving oil from.

And in the end, restricting supply of oil would still not help global warming, because the resulting extreme high prices for gas would encourage liquification of coal for use as a fuel.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #271 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
And in the end, restricting supply of oil would still not help global warming, because the resulting extreme high prices for gas would encourage liquification of coal for use as a fuel.

i know i know. i don't think we have a good chance of changing OPEC from the outside. but it seemed like a better idea, to me, than a global dictator. and if people think of global warming as calamitous as i do, they might be open to these ideas. As I mentioned before, I have more hope in alternative fuels than you do.

Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Whatever you try to convince OPEC to do will have to make economic sense and not reduce their profits.

Right now I can't think of a solution that makes complete economic sense (i only took that one econ class). Perhaps the toll on the environment can be thought of in terms of money, and we might consider that part of the costs.

Quote:
If you work the demand side ("decrease their own consumption") you'll get the opposite effect you are hoping for.

Chris, the goal is to stop/slow global warming. To that end, it helps to use less oil (which is widely believed to contribute to warming). Decreasing oil consumption is the effect we want. An unfortunate part of straight economics (as I understand it), is that it might make oil cheaper which could lead us back to increasing consumption [or force us to move to more dangerous alternatives]; so non-economic factors would have to come in to make this work.
post #272 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by thuh Freak
Right now I can't think of a solution that makes complete economic sense (i only took that one econ class). Perhaps the toll on the environment can be thought of in terms of money, and we might consider that part of the costs.

The way to do this is to essentially "charge" for environmental impact.


Quote:
Originally posted by thuh Freak
Chris, the goal is to stop/slow global warming. To that end, it helps to use less oil (which is widely believed to contribute to warming). Decreasing oil consumption is the effect we want. An unfortunate part of straight economics (as I understand it), is that it might make oil cheaper which could lead us back to increasing consumption [or force us to move to more dangerous alternatives]; so non-economic factors would have to come in to make this work.

You could just make using oil illegal.

The higher price, lower consumption, lower price, higher consumption cycle seems unlikely to be easily broken. Unless we have truly achieved "peak oil". In which case, we'll eventually stop using oil anyway. The problem will have taken care of itself.
post #273 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
You could just make using oil illegal.

The higher price, lower consumption, lower price, higher consumption cycle seems unlikely to be easily broken. Unless we have truly achieved "peak oil". In which case, we'll eventually stop using oil anyway. The problem will have taken care of itself.

Banning oil outright would help the environment, but for the fact that we'd need to replace it with something else. Since we don't have something cleaner and ready to go just yet, it would have to be more of a phased approach. I fear that we won't run out of oil until we've done irrevocable harm [we may have already?].
post #274 of 278
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #275 of 278

We aren't debating the existence of global warming anymore, just the efficacy of current attempts to combat it (which I think is zero).
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #276 of 278
Some people are still claiming CO2 doesn't cause global warming, like Naples.

And also, of course we're not doing enough.

What do we need to do? STOP IMMIGRATION from Mexico, number 1. They have a fecundity of 3.2 and become American in their emissions footprint in a generation. 2: we need worldwide, and in America even, population control, though incentive for less than 2 kids, and penalties (taxes) for more than two kids. This is because per capita emissions have remained static since the 70s.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #277 of 278
A nice article in todays SFGate about predictions of global warming's impact on California.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...01/WARMING.TMP

Also there is this PDF of the report that you can download:

http://sfgate.com/chronicle/acrobat/...ate_report.pdf

Bottom line is don't invest in sea-side property and prepare for water-wars the likes of which have never been seen in our state.
post #278 of 278
Quote:
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
A nice article in todays SFGate about predictions of global warming's impact on California.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...01/WARMING.TMP

Also there is this PDF of the report that you can download:

http://sfgate.com/chronicle/acrobat/...ate_report.pdf

Bottom line is don't invest in sea-side property and prepare for water-wars the likes of which have never been seen in our state.

10.5 degrees by 2100 is way on the high side of estimates, the other end of the estimate spectrum is 2 degrees.

10.5 degrees would end life on earth, because that is hot enough to cause the methane release.

Also - snowpack goes away, but the much larger and hotter ocean means more rainfall. The coastal regions of California would probably get plenty of water, but the other side of the sierras would be in a dismal rain shadow.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Global warming becomes even harder to deny...