or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Global warming vs our economy
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Global warming vs our economy

post #1 of 135
Thread Starter 
Has this been discussed here before?

I just watched "an inconvenient truth" and aside from the politicizing of it- I found it to be informative. One would have to go through the fact checking- but it appears many many international scientists have and concur that there is a huge problem. And after seeing the issues so concisely- the connecting of dots- how can our administration ignore this? How can they deliberately try to debunk such damning information? Why is our administration so hell bent on twisting science into religious morals when it is clearly so unethical?

It would seem we are quickly headed towards a pretty bad disaster. Now- if katrina stretched us so horribly, how could we possibly deal with this?

We have so many of our politicians worried about how reducing emissions will affect our economy. How can you weigh the long term damage to our economy that would be far worse than anything we've seen before vs the short term gain of putting it off?
post #2 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR View Post

Has this been discussed here before?

Yes. Ad nauseum. But...here we go again.
post #3 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR View Post

We have so many of our politicians worried about how reducing emissions will affect our economy. How can you weigh the long term damage to our economy that would be far worse than anything we've seen before vs the short term gain of putting it off?

These global warming threads all seem to end up in the same spot. My position is that conservation is useless in combating global warming, because conservation lowers the price of fuels, which increases consumption in other areas - seems like a no-brainer that this is true, but nobody seems to agree with me. And anyway, even if you believed that conservation had an effect, how could that hold up in the face of population growth and the wealth-building taking place in the 3rd world (largest mall in the world just built in China, for example).

Since I think that conservation is useless, I take the "go with the flow" approach. We need to be accurately predicting the effects of the unstoppable global warming, and re-structuring our society to deal with the effects. We should also be putting plans into place to stop any big events we might trigger (release of Methane from ocean, end of gulf stream, deoxygination of oceans).

The other controversy that spring up is "wet world vs dry world". Every past climate that was warmer than now was also wetter, once you exclude the epochs that had a supercontinent. Warmer world = larger oceans, warmer oceans, greater moisture capacity of atmosphere = more rainfall. In the end, tropical jungles will cover most of the earth, with Seattle like temparatures at the poles. The temparature will not rise that much at the equator, but a lot at the poles (unless we build a boatload of windmills, which will stop the wind enough to cool the poles and heat the equator resulting in a different climate pattern).
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #4 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

These global warming threads all seem to end up in the same spot. My position is that conservation is useless in combating global warming, because conservation lowers the price of fuels, which increases consumption in other areas - seems like a no-brainer that this is true, but nobody seems to agree with me.

I do. :-)
post #5 of 135
Who cares about the environment? When Jesus comes he'll set everything straight.
post #6 of 135
Thread Starter 
lol- i figured as much.

man- why doesn't AI just keep more than two pages of history? storage is so cheap!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla View Post

Yes. Ad nauseum. But...here we go again.
post #7 of 135
Thread Starter 
I know conservation won't work. It is just not in human nature to do it- especially not on a large scale.

I honestly think we probably crossed the event horizon on global warming the day we figured out how to use petroleum products as an energy source. So we'll greedily and humanly scream at an accelerated speed headlong into a disaster before the people left with the earth's correction pick up the pieces and move on. This has been demonstrated in our nature as recently as Katrina.

So there is no argument that the jury is out on global warming- just that there is no way to stop it?
post #8 of 135
Quote:
man- why doesn't AI just keep more than two pages of history? storage is so cheap!

Yeah, but it contributes to global warming - I'm sure AI is just doing their part!




eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #9 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR View Post

I know conservation won't work. It is just not in human nature to do it- especially not on a large scale.

I honestly think we probably crossed the event horizon on global warming the day we figured out how to use petroleum products as an energy source. So we'll greedily and humanly scream at an accelerated speed headlong into a disaster before the people left with the earth's correction pick up the pieces and move on. This has been demonstrated in our nature as recently as Katrina.

So there is no argument that the jury is out on global warming- just that there is no way to stop it?

Conservation:
I grew up in Europe and had relatives in East Germany. Individuals do conserve if there is no food, no luxury items, no medical care and no media. In 1970 the stores there had only 1 or 2 food items and if you were at the end of the line around 2 blocks and they ran out you just didn't eat that day.

Waste is luxury.

I agree that the horizon has been crossed and in a way I support Hummers and cars that get 2 miles to the gallon, so we could rid our world of oil as fast as possible. Unfortunately the planet is at the brinck of not beeing able to support the number of humans. Maybe we are not the intelligent species we think we are? Rain forests are still being cut down and we are facing a death spiral of CO2 increase versus O2 production elimination.

As to Rain:
Much rain causes tremendous erosion. To believe the earth will be covered in rain forest is a very optimistic view. Heavy rains can wash away top soil within hours.
post #10 of 135
Thread Starter 
And most likely- we won't even be able to predict all the damage that will occur once the ball really gets rolling.
post #11 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

Unfortunately the planet is at the brinck of not beeing able to support the number of humans.

This predication has been out there for centuries now. Malthus is probably considered the "father" of this idea based on his essay from over 200 years ago (though there is some suggestion that even he picked (plagerized?) it from earlier writers, scholars and thinkers). This Malthusian law (or fallacy as some say) is highly debated to this day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

Maybe we are not the intelligent species we think we are?

Well, there is certainly plenty of evidence for that!
post #12 of 135
Thread Starter 
I would think we'll debate the limits of how much our planet can support until it buckles in our faces and shows us exactly how much it can take.

It's far easier to debate the edge than take measures to keep from going over it....

Reminds me of an awesome HST quote:

The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over.
Hunter S. Thompson
post #13 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

Much rain causes tremendous erosion. To believe the earth will be covered in rain forest is a very optimistic view. Heavy rains can wash away top soil within hours.

Only where there is no plant cover. I grew up in a rain forrest (2 meters of rain/year), and I never saw an erosion problem. My island was made up of gravel covered by dirt, and no erosion.

We might have erosion problems with the thawing permifrost, but eventually southern plant species will move North, and we can treat the soil with nets and such in the mean time (I have actually done this on my land, the net stopped all erosion while plant life took hold on a cliff I had dug out).

If we are worried about erosion as the primary effect of global warming, time to stop thinking about it and move on to more serious threats.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #14 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Only where there is no plant cover. I grew up in a rain forrest (2 meters of rain/year), and I never saw an erosion problem. My island was made up of gravel covered by dirt, and no erosion.

We might have erosion problems with the thawing permifrost, but eventually southern plant species will move North, and we can treat the soil with nets and such in the mean time (I have actually done this on my land, the net stopped all erosion while plant life took hold on a cliff I had dug out).

If we are worried about erosion as the primary effect of global warming, time to stop thinking about it and move on to more serious threats.

Wow, growing up in the rain forest...

I live in the desert now and even little rain will wash away a lot of soil. I am looking out on a runoff and in just minutes the water will dig a new channel if there is some obstruction.
My friend in Washington state had no electricity for 5 days after the recent storm and there is wide spread infrastructure damage.
Let's not forget Yugoslavia where the Greeks had deforested miles of coast to build their ships, nothing grows there since the 2000BC.
post #15 of 135
There's still not really anything in the way of conclusive evidence that global warming is a man-made phenomenon. In fact, there's probably more evidence that it's not.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #16 of 135
And maybe the 3 feet of snow in my yard is evidence it isn't even happening at all!



post #17 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post

There's still not really anything in the way of conclusive evidence that global warming is a man-made phenomenon. In fact, there's probably more evidence that it's not.

This no longer matters. Its here and its real.
If we ever do have 100% proof and there were severe consequences it will not make sense to beat up on ourselves. If there were extremely positive changes we can always congratulate ourselves.
There are several cities in the USA in which chances of getting Asthma or other loung deficiencies if outside for 2 hours per day are 90%. In the end this will cost so much money, it will truly not matter what or who caused it.
To believe that man has absolutely nothing to do with it is flat out insane.
post #18 of 135
Re: Chis's comment about snow...

This is tantamount to saying that god must exist because you saw a plastic baby jesus in a church's manger...

Just about that idiotic...
"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 #19 of 135
Re: hardeeharhar's comment about Chris' comment about snow...

This is tantamount to someone being complete devoid of a sense of humor...

Just about that idiotic...
post #20 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR View Post

man- why doesn't AI just keep more than two pages of history? storage is so cheap!

Should we tell him?

Okay:

post #21 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla View Post

Re: hardeeharhar's comment about Chris' comment about snow...

This is tantamount to someone being complete devoid of a sense of humor...

Just about that idiotic...


So you say...
"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 #22 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla View Post

And maybe the 3 feet of snow in my yard is evidence it isn't even happening at all!




the funny thing is... Global Warming has the same initials as GW.
post #23 of 135
Our leaders are waiting for good, solid evidence. They don't want to jump to conclusions based on a limited data set....wait WMD? A forget it.
post #24 of 135
Half of our emissions could be taken care of quickly. Put solar panels on everything. More wind power. More biofuels. Hybrid cards could quickly double American's gas mileage. As you spend more on these fuels, they get more efficient. Look at microprocessors. They double in power every 18 months, but this is only because billions are spent to design them and for the factories. With some billions of dollars spent on alternative fuels, it would not be hard to get them down to reasonable prices.

The only way to do this is through taxes since individuals may be too lazy to do it. The government should buy all available alternative energy but only at a price to give moderate profits so as to give incentive for companies to produce the energy more efficiently.

Let's say solar power is 9 cents a kilowatt hour. If you offer $1 billion of profits guaranteed to the first company that can get it down to 8.9 cents you would get real competition going, like you have between AMD and Intel.
post #25 of 135
Thread Starter 
Aww shit!

thx Shawn!




Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Should we tell him?

Okay:
post #26 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

This no longer matters. Its here and its real.
If we ever do have 100% proof and there were severe consequences it will not make sense to beat up on ourselves. If there were extremely positive changes we can always congratulate ourselves.
There are several cities in the USA in which chances of getting Asthma or other loung deficiencies if outside for 2 hours per day are 90%. In the end this will cost so much money, it will truly not matter what or who caused it.
To believe that man has absolutely nothing to do with it is flat out insane.

People already have a disproportionate amount of lung problems, obesity, etc. It's not government's job to be nanny. In fact, it's quite likely that subsidized antibiotic drugs have led to these problems in the first place (another topic). If the geography changes, that's life, and we'll have to learn to deal with it. I don't see how this matters except to the people who live in the catastrophe areas.

Believe me, I live in Florida right now, and I own real estate. I wouldn't like to see the seas rise. But if they do, that's life, and chances are, it won't happen overnight, anyway. The information is out that global warming exists, and that it could lead to problems. It's not productive for people to fret about a future that we cannot really alter.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #27 of 135
Thread Starter 
I think hardheehar and Chris should just make out and get it over with....


Anyways- IMO- regardless of the cause (which is hard to really imagine it not being humans with all the dots you can connect and all) it just plain out can't hurt to set out on all the changes spindler outlined. We need to do such things anyways with petroleum being a finite resource and all. We could easily have this kind of infrastructure in place within ten years time. And just think about how much a better place our country would be. I am certainly going to get a bio-diesel car next (it would be fukn sweet to have a bio-diesel SUV that would be capable of taking me into the california wilds without worrying about fuel all the time), and have solar panels on my home. It makes no sense not too.

As it goes with the solar panels- in california if you put solar panels on your home, you get a rebate form the Cali government. So basically we all pay taxes on giving people solar panels as of today- so why not take advantage and reap some benefits to your tax money. I can't remember exactly how the conversation went, so I am not sure if this is how it should be or if this is how it is as of today. But, any house that has solar panels should be put on a grid where you can resell energy you don't use back. Then you have an opportunity to recoup costs for installing the panels (albeit slowly). It's all about incentives.

My boss has a bio-diesel VW, and gets 300 gallons of bio fuel delivered to his home. Considering he gets 25-30 MPG that's 7500-9000 MPG per delivery. The problem is that it costs about $5 a gallon right now, but the more people who use it, the cheaper it gets. And it's like having your own gas station on your property with none of the hazards. While this is great for rural/suburban areas- you need a better infrastructure in urban areas.

Then there is the issue that this means only the USA is changing (which is good anyways), but we still have to contend with China and India ramping up into the modern age en masse. And en masse indeed. That 1/3 of the earth's population awakening to the fact that you can have a Hummer and forced air heat, and air conditioning- etc etc...
post #28 of 135
Thread Starter 
Actually it's not productive to disregard the future and do nothing to make it for the better.

And if it did happen overnight?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post


Believe me, I live in Florida right now, and I own real estate. I wouldn't like to see the seas rise. But if they do, that's life, and chances are, it won't happen overnight, anyway. The information is out that global warming exists, and that it could lead to problems. It's not productive for people to fret about a future that we cannot really alter.
post #29 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindler View Post

Half of our emissions could be taken care of quickly. Put solar panels on everything. More wind power. More biofuels. Hybrid cards could quickly double American's gas mileage. ...

I have no problems with alternative energy. In fact, I support it just as I support environmental conservation. But cutting emissions by half is a drop in the proverbial bucket. The overwhelmingly greatest sources of greenhouse gas emission are active volcanoes, which as far as I know are entirely natural processes.

Personally, I say the United States should reform social security to provide benefits to the oldest X percentage instead of everyone after 65 (let's face it, in 1938 not many people lived past 65) and use the savings, which will be massive, to fund a massive project towards the development of fusion reactors. At this point fusion power hits home on so many levels: conservation, national security, energy exporting, etc.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #30 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR View Post

I am certainly going to get a bio-diesel car next (it would be fukn sweet to have a bio-diesel SUV that would be capable of taking me into the california wilds without worrying about fuel all the time)

I don't think that you realize that there is no difference between a diesel car and a bio-diesel car - you just buy a different fuel for the same old diesel cars that you could always buy.

And how would you not worry about fuel all the time? You still have to re-fuel. Do you think you put banana peels in the tank or something?

Quote:
Originally Posted by spindler View Post

Half of our emissions could be taken care of quickly. Put solar panels on everything. More wind power. More biofuels. Hybrid cards could quickly double American's gas mileage. As you spend more on these fuels, they get more efficient. Look at microprocessors. They double in power every 18 months, but this is only because billions are spent to design them and for the factories. With some billions of dollars spent on alternative fuels, it would not be hard to get them down to reasonable prices.

The only way to do this is through taxes since individuals may be too lazy to do it. The government should buy all available alternative energy but only at a price to give moderate profits so as to give incentive for companies to produce the energy more efficiently.

Let's say solar power is 9 cents a kilowatt hour. If you offer $1 billion of profits guaranteed to the first company that can get it down to 8.9 cents you would get real competition going, like you have between AMD and Intel.

I agree with an alternative energy push - I don't think that it will help global warming because conservation lowers prices of oil, but I think that it may save us from a peak oil energy crisis. Nuclear power is better than solar, though. Hybrid cars are a waste of time, fit only to make greenies feel good about themselves.

Biofuel is a disaster waiting to happen - if we transition to biofuel it will use up the 3rd world's food supply causing massive famine (we can afford to pay more for fuel than they can pay for food, and even the whole world's food supply converted to biofuel would not be enough to replace oil). Massive famine would be a good way to help global warming, though...
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #31 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR View Post

I would think we'll debate the limits of how much our planet can support until it buckles in our faces and shows us exactly how much it can take.

It's far easier to debate the edge than take measures to keep from going over it....

Reminds me of an awesome HST quote:

The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over.
Hunter S. Thompson

As a person that is not at all on the Global Warming bandwagon, it might surprise you to know I agree with you to an extent. We should transition to non-fossil fuels and energy sources over the next 50 years.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #32 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR View Post

Actually it's not productive to disregard the future and do nothing to make it for the better.

And if it did happen overnight?

1. I'm not disregarding the future. I suggest that people should be diligent to keep up with the information so that they may sell low-lying properties, or simply move out, at opportune times. I'm all for reducing emissions, but I don't think that would do a thing to prevent global warming.

2. It's not going to happen overnight. Unless you're writing a B movie, it's pointless to consider it.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #33 of 135
Thread Starter 
I do know that-- I never said you had to have a biodiesel car- I could get a used Iraq war Hummer and throw bio-diesel in it.

Anyways- I also know I still have to refuel.

Maybe I mislead you- but yes, I realize these particulars. ?


?


Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

I don't think that you realize that there is no difference between a diesel car and a bio-diesel car - you just buy a different fuel for the same old diesel cars that you could always buy.

And how would you not worry about fuel all the time? You still have to re-fuel. Do you think you put banana peels in the tank or something?
post #34 of 135
Thread Starter 
Yea- it's kind of hard to shit on a win-win two birds with one stone no brainer solution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

As a person that is not at all on the Global Warming bandwagon, it might surprise you to know I agree with you to an extent. We should transition to non-fossil fuels and energy sources over the next 50 years.
post #35 of 135
Thread Starter 
1) true. It would have to encompass many facets of reduction of green house gases. So you selling at some point?

2) Hurricanes sucka! They can happen overnight- especially the ones ramped up and supercharged by warmer waters. I am sure you've been in FL long enough to know that's not a B movie type of plot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post

1. I'm not disregarding the future. I suggest that people should be diligent to keep up with the information so that they may sell low-lying properties, or simply move out, at opportune times. I'm all for reducing emissions, but I don't think that would do a thing to prevent global warming.

2. It's not going to happen overnight. Unless you're writing a B movie, it's pointless to consider it.
post #36 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR View Post

1) true. It would have to encompass many facets of reduction of green house gases. So you selling at some point?

2) Hurricanes sucka! They can happen overnight- especially the ones ramped up and supercharged by warmer waters. I am sure you've been in FL long enough to know that's not a B movie type of plot.

Perhaps you can explain why we had so few storms this year, hmmm?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #37 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR View Post

2) Hurricanes sucka! They can happen overnight- especially the ones ramped up and supercharged by warmer waters. I am sure you've been in FL long enough to know that's not a B movie type of plot.

When was the last time everyone in the path of a hurricane didn't have about a week's notice that a) it was happening, b) it was going to hit, and c) an amazingly accurate prediction of where it was going to hit?
post #38 of 135
Thread Starter 
Of course I can- I am actually Satan, and I wanted a light year. I am tired of fukin everything up all the time. I just wanted to chill on a beach instead of wrecking it.



At any rate- I wasn't making commentary on storms per se. I am sure spline remembers 2005 even if 2006 was a light year. And that still won't make a difference if 2007 is an active year, no?

Since my local meteorologist can't even get weather right most of the time, and he is supposedly an expert, I am not going to purport to know why weather works in the way it does.

But if one can measure that say the Gulf is warmer than it was last year- and they know warmer water provokes stronger storms- then......


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Perhaps you can explain why we had so few storms this year, hmmm?
post #39 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindler View Post

Half of our emissions could be taken care of quickly. Put solar panels on everything. More wind power. More biofuels.

Don't you think that we'd already be going to these things if the cost/benefit trade-offs supported doing so?

Quote:
Originally Posted by spindler View Post

As you spend more on these fuels, they get more efficient...With some billions of dollars spent on alternative fuels, it would not be hard to get them down to reasonable prices.

Possibly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spindler View Post

The only way to do this is through taxes since individuals may be too lazy to do it.

I love it. People aren't making the choices I want them to make so let me try and force them to do it through government policy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spindler View Post

The government should buy all available alternative energy but only at a price to give moderate profits so as to give incentive for companies to produce the energy more efficiently.

You have a lot to learn about economics and how effective your little plan would be.
post #40 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR View Post

Of course I can- I am actually Satan, and I wanted a light year. I am tired of fukin everything up all the time. I just wanted to chill on a beach instead of wrecking it.



At any rate- I wasn't making commentary on storms per se. I am sure spline remembers 2005 even if 2006 was a light year. And that still won't make a difference if 2007 is an active year, no?

Since my local meteorologist can't even get weather right most of the time, and he is supposedly an expert, I am not going to purport to know why weather works in the way it does.

But if one can measure that say the Gulf is warmer than it was last year- and they know warmer water provokes stronger storms- then......

Well you just said it yourself. There are factors beyond water temperature. Yes, existing hurricanes tend to feed on warm water. But there are other variables that may cancel out that "given."
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Global warming vs our economy