Climate Change Thread

[KI4MVP]

I thought this needed it's own thread instead of being the new topic in the hurricane thread.

Burning fossil fuels is warming our planet and changing the PH of our oceans. This became a topic in the hurricane thread because a warming planet means warmer oceans which means hurricanes can become more powerful.

It's far too easy to ignore this because on a day to day living scale the changes are slow. But on a historical climate scale, the change is rapid and accelerating.

People arguing against doing something about climate change just baffles me.

Within our lifetime or those of our children there some places in the world that people currently live will be too hot to support human life with a heat index of 170, while other places will be under water. If this were occurring naturally, it would be the #1 most important issue for society to solve. But since it's being caused by our burning fossil fuels, people want to ignore it.

The money and convenience of not changing anything can't ultimately be more important than the global impact.

Imagine an astroid projected to hit earth in 50 years and people arguing against spending money to stop it from happening because, hey, astroids are naturally occurring and have hit earth in the past.

 

[gourimoko]

Can someone present the conservatives argument here?

Might be useful to debate it...?

 

[Brandname]

Can someone present the conservatives argument here?

Might be useful to debate it...?

Unfortunately, most of what I see from that side is mocking, guesswork, sarcasm, and sophistry.

I'd actually welcome a sincere effort to present the scientific side of the argument against anthropogenic global warming. Unfortunately, this is difficult because there are very few people who are informed enough about climate change yet disagree with the conclusion that humans are causing the majority of it.

And I mean that in the least No-True-Scotsman way possible.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

It's a silly distinction to me, as it completely (and I'd argue, deliberately) sidesteps the actual issue that people are getting at, which is a concerted effort to invest significantly more money into developing these alternative technologies, regardless of whether they happen to be more expensive than extracting oil today. Focusing on whether we will "run out" of oil is a bit of a red herring when discussing the topic. The actual question of course isn't "Will we run out of oil?", but rather:

1) By the time oil extraction becomes too expensive compared to alternative methods, will we have already put too much GHGs into the atmosphere resulting in devastating ecological effects?
and

2) If so, can we use policy to correct this problem proactively? And how?

That's a fair point. But I was not the one who brought up the "running out of oil" argument as an independent harm of its own. I went there when someone else started talking about plastics, etc.. Happy to put it aside.

But, the cost-curve argument does have direct relevance to the two points you raise. Specifically, the whole reason the cost issue arose was because I said that @KI4MVP was "waving away without addressing" concerns about what China and India -- and you could add in the rest of the developing world -- would be doing about their emissions. And his response to that concern was to say that solar was cheaper, so they'd follow along anyway.

I say that's false, and that the data does not support the idea that switching over from carbon to solar is the economically cheaper alternative. At least, not yet. China and India are desperately trying to increase their total power generation as it is, and to the extent they do use solar, it's going to be to augment rather than replace fossil fuels.

So to your point 2), the relevant question isn't just what policies we can adopt here in the U.S., but rather what good they will really do when most of the rest of the world keeps churning out carbon anyway.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I do understand and can sympathize with the conservative viewpoint that it could put us at an economic disadvantage compared to the rest of the world if we don't utilize the cheapest fuel source while others do. I don't think that's an illogical viewpoint.

The only thing is that there really is no natural way of getting around that problem.

See, that's where we have a disconnect. Saying "there's no way to get around that problem" doesn't actually resolve the problem, or address in any meaningful way the concerns it raised. It is still a huge problem whose affect should be taken into account in whatever we decide to do.

So we can sit here and have a Mexican standoff with the rest of the world inside of a house that's burning down, or we can try to do something.

Well, not to be flip (okay, maybe a little), but the proper solution to a Mexican standoff isn't to pull your gun and blow off your own head.

"Doing something" isn't always a very logical response either. If all your "somethings" have attached costs, and none of them are likely to materially improve the situation (because of the unsolvable problem listed above), then doing nothing and conserving those resources (instead of spending on a fruitless endeavor) may in fact be the most logical course.

I just don't think it's an acceptable solution to avoid taking action because we can't control what China et al. does. It's going to take a global effort to make the changes that need to be made, and the U.S. is one of the few countries with enough global clout to try to shape the way the world's energy is produced.

This reads to me perilously close to advocating a purely symbolic action, which is fine if the costs are minimal. Saying "well, let's do something and hope that it somehow has an effect" is really just guesswork and finger-crossing.

Here's how I look at it. If we really tried to wean our way off fossil fuels other than on a cost-effective basis, it is going to have serious economic repercussions regardless, and especially if China, India, and the rest of the world doesn't follow. We are already struggling to maintain competitiveness globally, and the increased cost of this is going to make it worse. That means real families losing real jobs, prices of goods will increase, more taxes will be necessary to subsidize that conversion, and all when we're teetering on an economic edge anyway. The human and social cost here would be significant, and offset only by sort of a fingers-crossed hope that the rest of the world will change its mind.

Personally, I think the best course for us is to plan for adapting our own nation for slightly higher temperatures. That will be a direct benefit to us, and it's success isn't dependent upon whether or not the rest of the world chooses to go along.

I'd rather buy a boat than keep my finger in the dyke while everyone else does nothing as the leaks multiply.

 

[The Oi]

So we'll literally never run out of a substance created by fossils regardless of the speed at which human beings extract it? It regenerates that fast?

When and why did this become a conservatives vs liberals thing? It just seems like it could have arbitrarily gone either way dependent on what oil company heads, Super PACs, lobbyists and talking heads wanted to manipulate their minions to believe.

 

[The Oi]

Can someone present the conservatives argument here?

Might be useful to debate it...?

Keep milking the oil cow. At all costs.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

So we'll literally never run out of a substance created by fossils regardless of the speed at which human beings extract it? It regenerates that fast?

Actually, it's the economic version of Zeno's Paradox.

"Regardless of the speed at which it is extracted" is where you're getting lost.

 

[The Oi]

Actually, it's the economic version of Zeno's Paradox.

"Regardless of the speed at which it is extracted" is where you're getting lost.

I wikipedia'd this and read a couple paragraphs and saw a couple charts and then realized it would take too long to figure out this analogy than to just ask for a direct answer to my question.

I'm actually asking a genuine question. The concept just never made sense to me.

 

[gourimoko]

Here's how I look at it. If we really tried to wean our way off fossil fuels other than on a cost-effective basis, it is going to have serious economic repercussions regardless, and especially if China, India, and the rest of the world doesn't follow. We are already struggling to maintain competitiveness globally, and the increased cost of this is going to make it worse. That means real families losing real jobs, prices of goods will increase, more taxes will be necessary to subsidize that conversion, and all when we're teetering on an economic edge anyway. The human and social cost here would be significant, and offset only by sort of a fingers-crossed hope that the rest of the world will change its mind.

Is there any proof to the bolded statements? Any factual evidence for this, at all?

Personally, I think the best course for us is to plan for adapting our own nation for slightly higher temperatures. That will be a direct benefit to us, and it's success isn't dependent upon whether or not the rest of the world chooses to go along.

This shows you do not remotely understand the issue being discussed. We're literally talking about the future habitability of the planet.

I'd rather buy a boat than keep my finger in the dyke while everyone else does nothing as the leaks multiply.

Don't take my word for it...

"Researchers from the University of New South Wales in Australia and Purdue University in the US said global warming will not stop after 2100, the point where most previous projections have ended.

In fact temperatures may rise by up to 12C (21.6F) within just three centuries making many countries into deserts.

The study, published in the prestigious journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, said humans will not be able to adapt or survive in such conditions.

Professor Tony McMichael, one of the authors, said if the world continues to pump out greenhouse gases at the current rate it will cause catastrophic warming.

"Under realistic scenarios out to 2300, we may be faced with temperature increases of 12 degrees or even more," he said. "If this happens, our current worries about sea level rise, occasional heatwaves and bushfires, biodiversity loss and agricultural difficulties will pale into insignificance beside a major threat - as much as half the currently inhabited globe may simply become too hot for people to live there."

 

[The Oi]

Just to make sure I know where I stand...

Is anyone in here a majority owner in an oil company, an oil lobbyist, part of a Super PAC or work for FOX news?

I'm just trying to get an idea of WHY people are so focused on oil at all costs. And why it's all Republicans.

As somewhat of a masochist, sometimes I like to learn a little about politics. And over and over, I just keep returning to the idea that people's positions are firmly rooted in what their favorite news stations and websites tell them to believe. This goes for both sides, but particularly with Republicans.

To re-affirm my credibility here as a-political, I think hipsters and PC police are trying to ruin comedy. So I think a lot of liberals suck ass too.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I wikipedia'd this and read a couple paragraphs and saw a couple charts and then realized it would take too long to figure out this analogy than to just ask for a direct answer to my question.

I'm actually asking a genuine question. The concept just never made sense to me.

Is Zeno really that confusing? It's pretty simple - because you have to go half of a distance before you can go the entire distance, you will never get to the end. Because each step forward could be only half the remaining difference. It's really a hidden ball trick, because inherent in the paradox is that when you cut distance in half, you're actually cutting the amount of time in half as well....

Anyway, the point on the oil is that the cost of extracting oil will increase as it becomes more scarce, and as it increases, less will be pumped. So when you say "regardless of the speed at which it is extracted", you're ignoring the fact that we're not going to be pumping it out as fast if it costs $500/barrel to get it out. Alternatives will be cheaper. And when it gets to be $1000, or $2000/barrel, even less will be pumped out.

So, the point is that it will eventually become so cost-prohibitive to extract that we'll stop extracting it. And we'll therefore never run out.

That's an important distinction to understand, for two reasons.

First, some people make the "we're gonna fall of the no-oil cliff", by doing what you did and assuming a constant -- or even increasing -- rate of extraction. But that's not how it will work. Our shift over from oil will be gradual because production will not simply continue at that pace until it's all gone.

Second, the cost curve of extraction means that the market will gradually force a shift into alternative fuels. Letting that happen at a normal market rate that can be predicted and adjusted to by price signals and the market is going to be a much more efficient process than doing it by government fiat or incentives that distort the market.

Now, the issue of global warming is an external consideration that might be sufficient cause to take the less economically efficient route and do the changeover more quickly. But my point is that there is little incentive to do that if China, India, etc. are going to keep doing it anyway.

 

[gourimoko]

And we'll therefore never run out.

To @Brandname and @KI4MVP 's point: this is semantics. While we don't necessarily run out; it is no longer a usable fuel for such reasons already detailed.

So for all practical purposes petrol based fuels will no longer exist because they'll no longer be refined for commercial use. We will, in effect, have run out.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Just to make sure I know where I stand...

Is anyone in here a majority owner in an oil company, an oil lobbyist, part of a Super PAC or work for FOX news?

I'm just trying to get an idea of WHY people are so focused on oil at all costs. And why it's all Republicans.

As somewhat of a masochist, sometimes I like to learn a little about politics. And over and over, I just keep returning to the idea that people's positions are firmly rooted in what their favorite news stations and websites tell them to believe. This goes for both sides, but particularly with Republicans.

You do realize that guys like @Maximus and I were conservatives long before websites or FoxNews even existed, right?

To answer your question, Republican are more likely to be involved in business and commerce than are Democrats, who in turn are more likely to work for governments or academia. As such, a lot of us tend to be bottom-line guys who focus heavily on real-world economic and business realities. To us, lefty arguments sound a lot like "well, so what if energy costs more, we'll be humping the fucking trees anyway, so who cares about a little extra money" And what we think is "do these naïve twits have any clue what those higher costs will mean in terms of jobs and the economy, and real world, concrete suffering?"

Not sure what else to say. It's just a different way of seeing things.

Take a typical disagreement between me and Mrs. Tip. She'll say "why, look at that lovely rug. It would look great in our dining room!" And I'll say, "yeah, but it won't fit." And then she'll say, "yes, but wouldn't those colors look great?" And I'll say "yeah, but it won't fit." Of course, we buy the rug. And when we get home, and the rug doesn't fit, she'll say "I can't believe you didn't say how small this room was when we bought the house...." And then I'll smack her upside the head with a shovel and bury her in the backyard.

Point is, I see the left as being consistently naïve in terms of the likely consequences of their grandiose schemes, to the point of just waving away reality on occasion. China and India doing their own thing is the elephant in the too-small dining room that you can't simply ignore because it is inconvenient.

To re-affirm my credibility here...

Is it even possible to reaffirm something you never had?

Just wondering....

 

[KI4MVP]

To @Brandname and @KI4MVP 's point: this is semantics. While we don't necessarily run out; it is no longer a usable fuel for such reasons already detailed.

So for all practical purposes petrol based fuels will no longer exist because they'll no longer be refined for commercial use. We will, in effect, have run out.

I wish I could hit the winner button more than once fore this.