If there are questions about the scientific conclusions let's discuss them.
If there are questions about the economic ramifications of the necessary changes, we can discuss those too, separately.
If there are questions about proposed solutions to the problem, then we can work those out as well - comparing "free market" solutions to national initiatives and determining which one would likely lead to greater end results.
But prior to all that, since it seems as though this conversation is going in circles, I'd just like some show of hands as to who in here actually doesn't believe that man-made climate change is an imminent threat? So far, from what I can tell, this seems to go straight down ideological lines, which, is fucking abysmally sad when this should be a scientific issue.
@KI4MVP phrased it as an asteroid on a collision course with Earth. I get why he says that... The effects could be roughly the same, if not worse, if we don't do something soon.
From my perspective, it seems some people would be willing to condemn their grandchildren to suffer, and yes I know how crass that sounds but think about it; solely because of their own ideological beliefs in how government should work. This just seems like such a small thing in the face of such a global imminent danger.
All I'm asking of the conservatives is to ask themselves;
what if science is right and yet we do nothing (or not enough) because of the religious fervor around "free market" capitalism? How does one reconcile this with their ethical beliefs, with their patriotism, or (hopefully) their love of the planet?
I'll bite, despite some bit of condescending assumptions such as party lines driving policy beliefs. Let's play.
I'd just like some show of hands as to who in here actually doesn't believe that man-made climate change is an imminent threat? So far, from what I can tell, this seems to go straight down ideological lines, which, is fucking abysmally sad when this should be a scientific issue.
This is, by definition, an economic and a scientific issue. Those two factors are so completely intertwined in this, you can't really have one without the other. The ideal solution would involve cutting all emissions, re-employing everyone in the energy sector immediately at the same or higher wage, and providing renewable energy worldwide cheaper than current costs. The worst case would involve massive unemployment, energy costs driving significant inflation globally, and a slow reduction in emissions. The real solution needs to be in the middle.
For the record, consider me someone who believes that man-made climate change poses a significant threat, and yes I'd label it as imminent, so long as by imminent we are talking about an issue facing us over the next century, not imminent in the sense that the oceans will begin boiling in 5 years. I'm curious what you've seen in the past 2 years that have changed your stance so dramatically. Recently, you didn't believe in man-made climate change. The research hasn't really changed, what happened?
From my perspective, it seems some people would be willing to condemn their grandchildren to suffer, and yes I know how crass that sounds but think about it; solely because of their own ideological beliefs in how government should work. This just seems like such a small thing in the face of such a global imminent danger.
It's quips like this that tend to keep me from really digging in on internet debates. There's so much in terms of assumptions and accusations here, it's pretty condescending. The leading term "From my perspective" doesn't forgive the rest of the statement. My daughter is a big fan of "No offense, but..." The rest of the statement doesn't get a pass. This isn't about "how government should work." This is about how the industry currently is working, the steps being done to lead to an economic solution, and debating whether that solution does or doesn't align with an environmental solution. Environmental concerns rarely would drive economic concerns, and thus the basic assumption that industry needs incentive might bear weight. But that isn't the case in this specific example, ironically for reasons both you and
@KI4MVP keep espousing: Alternative energy will ultimately be a cheaper alternative given time in development. If that fundamental point is true, then economics will align with environment.
My take has nothing to do with politics, unless you paint politics with a very broad brush. I don't know if I'd classify myself as a conservative or a liberal at this point, it varies by issue. If there wasn't a fiscal reason for reducing man-made climate change, I would be on the other side of this debate. Something does NEED to be done. I am not sitting here waiting for a white knight company to figure this out, I am simply observing what the market is actually doing in response. I see companies like Lockheed Martin pursuing fusion as a solution. I see Exxon and IBM investing in potential nuclear options. I see start up solar companies which seem to continually fail, but the costs drop and production increases annually. Why are there so many millionaires willing to help bankroll all these different solar endeavors despite the low success rate? Because every investor knows that it is the future, and whoever guesses where the floor is properly will make a fortune. New solar companies willing to take a projected loss over the next 15 years on 30 year contracts expecting to make profit on the back end, it's a smart approach. It's also very gutsy. But right now, those companies have the highest likelihood of becoming industrial giants: They'll have cash flow to show investors, they'll be able to responsibly plan for expansion, and they'll be in position to capitalize when the cost of solar definitively undercuts fossil fuels.
All I'm asking of the conservatives is to ask themselves; what if science is right and yet we do nothing (or not enough) because of the religious fervor around "free market" capitalism? How does one reconcile this with their ethical beliefs, with their patriotism, or (hopefully) their love of the planet?
Science is right. But science isn't really predicting what will happen, or where the breaking point is. That's not how these studies work. To solve man-made global warming, cutting emissions will not be enough. I mentioned this earlier, and I'm sure if you take the time to research the topic at hand you'll see it as well: If there was 0 more emissions tomorrow, the climate will continue to rise for the next 100 years simply due to the carbon already in the atmosphere. Is putting more carbon in the atmosphere in the meantime a bad idea? Sure, environmentally, but we don't really have a choice. What we need to be researching is how to pull that carbon back out of the atmosphere. (We are, by the way. Both IBM and Exxon have developed prototypes to do exactly this. They aren't anywhere near effective/ efficient enough to make a dent, but there will be improvements over time)
Yet what's important here is your assumption: What if we do nothing... We are doing something. We are doing a lot of something. And by we, I am referring to the market. Solar panels have become dramatically cheaper and more efficient. We haven't hit a plateau, and we won't for over 30 years. The technology will continue to double in efficiency every 2 years for the next 30. Around 2020, it will be as cost effective as fossil fuels for much of the world. By 2025, financially it will be the best option available. Again, short of artificially inflating the cost of other forms of energy to comparatively reduce the cost of solar, there's almost nothing the government can do to speed up that track. Nor is it necessarily responsible to do so. Upsetting worldwide established markets before they've had the chance to adjust could be economically disastrous, and will have very little affect over the next 100 years on the climate.
Your assumptions that others are turning a deaf ear on this topic is frustrating. I've been saying much the same stuff for the last 10 pages in this debate, and none of it has been addressed. Please explain to me how trying to legitimately find an honest, responsible solution to climate change makes me a poor patriot... When I mention the amount of disarray the middle east and the UAE would be if we tried to violently disrupt the energy market, despite if doing so just plummeted the cost of oil and global emissions stayed relatively stagnant (or even increased) as other countries burned more because of said reduced costs, how does that bring my ethics into question? When I discuss the more nuanced issues at hand, or discuss what actually needs done to curb climate change, how does that implicate my hatred of the planet? It's just fluff words and broad accusations, there's nothing here.
I'll end on this: If you want to cut emissions, you need to convince the world to stop driving cars. You need to convince Americans to stop eating so much damn beef, really you need to get the world on board with going vegetarian. You need to start regulating births worldwide, because overpopulation may be the biggest driver of the issue. None of that is going to happen, certainly not in the next 100 years, and cutting out power plants is only one small part of the total problem. So we need a different solution. Let renewable energy continue it's march forward towards replacing power plants. At some point, cloned meat will likely become a substitute for actual beef, and we can start killing off the cow population responsibly. But we need to develop a way to siphon carbon out of the atmosphere. If we can't do that, the rest of this will not make a significant impact, and the planet is already fucked. Printing "I told you so" shirts might be the best thing KI can hope for at that point.
Who do you think gets more grants and speaking fees, the people that say the debate is over or the scientists that are skeptical and still asking questions? It's exponentially more profitable to be an alarmist than a skeptic. Skeptics also get smeared as kooks, nuts, crazies, etc.
