As to the "tragedy of the commons" issue you referenced, it simply doesn't exist.
You should google "overfishing."
I am sure your assertion comes as news to a lot of fisherman around the world.
That is where alternatives come into play. You're not talking about a particular fish, you're talking about food.
Ah, the narrowness of your outlook defies description.
Fish is just food? Yikes. Look up the word 'ecosystem'.
Yes. All non-human life on Earth is potential food (in some societies humans were also included). Humans are omnivorous. Surely this isn't breaking news.
patchythepirate said: why are we preparing to spend trillions of dollars to decrease levels of airborne plant food!
Partly because plant food isn't also human food, we live here too y'know. If you stand behind a bus, count how long it takes to reach the level of air quality you (as a non-plant life-form) are happy with. The process of producing it isn't clean, that's the main reason clean energy is called that.
"Smog worsens in the winter as coal burning spikes to provide heat for millions of people. China declared a “war on pollution” in 2014, but has struggled to deliver the sweeping change many had hoped to see and government inspections routinely find pollutions flouting the law."
“Why didn’t those polluting industries take a rest for the holiday,” one commenter mused on the Twitter-like Sina Weibo.
“New Year’s morning in Beijing, I thought I was blind,” said another, attaching a photo of a window completely darkened with grey haze.
Mining fossil fuels has effects on the stability of the earth and the purity of drinking water.
Fossil fuels aren't sustainable. There's a limited supply, you burn it and it's gone. Even if there's a lot, renewable energy is a lot more, practically infinite, the clue is in the name.
The debate over the accuracy of temperature and climate effects from human activity distracts from the motives of each side. The primary motive to continue polluting the Earth with wanton abandon is money. While there are bad actors on any side when there's public funds involved, the primary motive of not polluting the Earth isn't money, it's to have long-term clean, sustainable, safe energy for multiple future generations and a planet we can still see clearly rather than through a dense fog.
If the monetary cost was negligible, it would be done because it's the morally better option so rather than non-scientists endlessly debating about climate models to fit conclusions they've already made, the focus should be on how best to avoid polluting the Earth in the most efficient way. Part of this has to be to come up with a new economic model for jobs rather than 'get this guy a shovel'.
The opposition to the climate science is often about inaccurate/incomplete models and the adaptation the Earth would make to the changes but the economics debate uses models too e.g if we take away these jobs, these jobs are gone. Change the economics and it won't happen. This should be a walk in the park for the people who know better than actual scientists. There's always talk about spending trillions. There were trillions spent on bailing out banks so the idea of 'spending' is misleading. Money is cycling around, people manufactured every cent of it and it doesn't just disappear unless we make it do that.
What it's really about is finding meaningful activities for some human beings to be doing so that other human beings give their artificial money to them. Come up with jobs for people in the fossil fuel industry to do and have a transition from the old job to the new one. Invest in renewable energy businesses and employ people there. As long as power is being supplied, people will pay for it.
"Lets solve global warming!!!" (and avoid the rising sea levels, harsher weather, droughts, and hurricanes, etc) We can spend about 7-10 TRILLION dollars and replace every land based vehicle in the US with a hybrid (assuming we could source enough lithium salts to manufacture this amount of vehicles); Would that simply solve the issue? No more climate change? No rising Sea levels? No droughts? NO!it would have almost no long term effect on the negative dangers listed above. BUT 7 trillion $ goes a very looooooong way toward building seawalls to protect low-lying cities, and levies to defend against hurricanes, and desalinization plants to deal with fresh water shortages, and aqueducts to feed water to farm land, etc.... And as an added bonus, deferring this spending allows us to only spend as needed in case the predicted dangers don't materialize, as opposed to spending now on what is little more than a gamble on a gamble (a gamble that the predicted dangers actually appear as predicted and that our plan to stem these dangers actually works....)
When are those proposals ever seriously submitted as alternatives by people opposing clean energy solutions? The agenda of people who embrace selfishness is to avoid paying for anything so that they personally save money. There's no diversion of funds to a more worthy cause. Selfish people don't think about future generations; once they've lived their life, the mess left behind is someone else's problem.
Those solutions are also all disaster recovery options, they don't do anything about energy sustainability, safety or cleanliness.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/02/china-smog-millions-start-new-year-shrouded-by-health-alerts-and-travel-chaos
"Smog worsens in the winter as coal burning spikes to provide heat for millions of people. China declared a “war on pollution” in 2014, but has struggled to deliver the sweeping change many had hoped to see and government inspections routinely find pollutions flouting the law."
“Why didn’t those polluting industries take a rest for the holiday,” one commenter mused on the Twitter-like Sina Weibo.
“New Year’s morning in Beijing, I thought I was blind,” said another, attaching a photo of a window completely darkened with grey haze.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-summer-smog-20160805-snap-story.html
Mining fossil fuels has effects on the stability of the earth and the purity of drinking water.
Fossil fuels aren't sustainable. There's a limited supply, you burn it and it's gone. Even if there's a lot, renewable energy is a lot more, practically infinite, the clue is in the name.
The debate over the accuracy of temperature and climate effects from human activity distracts from the motives of each side. The primary motive to continue polluting the Earth with wanton abandon is money. While there are bad actors on any side when there's public funds involved, the primary motive of not polluting the Earth isn't money, it's to have long-term clean, sustainable, safe energy for multiple future generations and a planet we can still see clearly rather than through a dense fog.
If the monetary cost was negligible, it would be done because it's the morally better option so rather than non-scientists endlessly debating about climate models to fit conclusions they've already made, the focus should be on how best to avoid polluting the Earth in the most efficient way. Part of this has to be to come up with a new economic model for jobs rather than 'get this guy a shovel'.
The opposition to the climate science is often about inaccurate/incomplete models and the adaptation the Earth would make to the changes but the economics debate uses models too e.g if we take away these jobs, these jobs are gone. Change the economics and it won't happen. This should be a walk in the park for the people who know better than actual scientists. There's always talk about spending trillions. There were trillions spent on bailing out banks so the idea of 'spending' is misleading. Money is cycling around, people manufactured every cent of it and it doesn't just disappear unless we make it do that.
What it's really about is finding meaningful activities for some human beings to be doing so that other human beings give their artificial money to them. Come up with jobs for people in the fossil fuel industry to do and have a transition from the old job to the new one. Invest in renewable energy businesses and employ people there. As long as power is being supplied, people will pay for it.
When are those proposals ever seriously submitted as alternatives by people opposing clean energy solutions? The agenda of people who embrace selfishness is to avoid paying for anything so that they personally save money. There's no diversion of funds to a more worthy cause. Selfish people don't think about future generations; once they've lived their life, the mess left behind is someone else's problem.
Those solutions are also all disaster recovery options, they don't do anything about energy sustainability, safety or cleanliness.