Climate Change: Why aren't more people concerned about it?

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 561 - 580 of total 2200 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

Fat Dad

Trad climber

Los Angeles, CA

Dec 11, 2016 - 11:37am PT

Rick's cost effectiveness argument is not a serious rebuttal. One could make (but mot necessarily establish the truth of) that argument with respect to almost every government agency, yet I don't hear calls to scrap those. It has become the quick, non-substantive reply of the right to most policies proposed by the Dems. It's right up there with "it's a job killer" argument. Easy to make, hard to prove but readily swallowed by the right leaning voters.

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Dec 11, 2016 - 11:40am PT

rick is referring to a statement I made regarding the size of the "signal" of rising temperatures in the early part of the 20th century compared to the natural variability of the climate, as we could measure it then.

It makes a good sound bite for him, it confirms his own belief, and allows him to neglect the context. rick knows the answer, he just finds arguments that support that particular answer.

As the level of CO2 increased in the atmosphere, and the surface temperature rose as a consequence, this "signal" increased well beyond the natural variability of the recent climate. Supported both by increasingly accurate contemporary measurements, and the increasingly accurate unfolding of historic climate.

Paleoclimatology was a "basic research" activity which did not have any goal other than to understand the historic climate... as the hypothesis of human activity affecting modern climate became a more likely explanation, interest naturally turned to understanding the pre-industrial climate, and so paleoclimate emerged as an important part of climate science.

On a day-to-day, year-to-year look, natural variation might still seem to mask the general climate trends, now defined to be the 30-year average, and we are barely 30 years into the "modern observation" era.

The signal of human activity is robust... isn't it interesting that we don't hear about "the pause" anymore? it wasn't a pause... the signal increases.

As for my own opinion, I stand with the best science to help inform my views, and the best climate science is that human activity is the major contributing factor to the 20th-21st century climate change. That science also forms the basis of what might happen in the future, a much better basis than rick's vague concerns regarding his pocket book. And it is likely that his pocket book won't be very effected, but his children's and his children's children most likely will.

Given that there is no need to drive an inefficient car, for example, and vent its considerable exhaust into the atmosphere, one wonders why our notion of "personal liberty" (my right to pollute?) and our desire to have an overpowered car, is more important than the future of the planet... why do we need to be wasteful of resources?

As far as personal liberty is concerned, I'm not advocating that rick should get rid of his Humvee, just that the cost of operating it be the price he pays, he can do it, he has to pay for it... same for his profligate energy use at home...

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Dec 11, 2016 - 11:43am PT

sure thing Ed.,.,

nice one liner, pyro... unfortunately the volcanic activity is swamped by the human CO2 increases...

maybe you should try to look at the science, it would be time better spent than trolling the websites you appear to enjoy looking at, the ones that make you look rather foolish.

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html

Dave

Mountain climber

the ANTI-fresno

Dec 11, 2016 - 04:03pm PT

Here's some micro-economic cost effectiveness checks for you.

A solar installation for my house would cost around $8,000. The power bill savings (average) over a year was estimated at around 50% or $50 a month ($600 a year).

So the payback on the installation is 13 years!!! Who would do that???

So, how about an electric car? My truck is getting old and I'm shopping, so I'm going to get something...

Well, most things out there don't have the range to get from home to work. So Tesla? That has the range... Let's say a Model 3 to make the economics remotely fair. So by the time you add the options to make a Telsa ... a Tesla ... you are up to $60k. A replacement for my truck is $27k, so the incremental cost to save the earth and save gas is $33k.

$33,000 buys 1000 tanks of gas. 350,000 miles of driving. The way I drive that is 25-30 years. I'll save the $33k and worry about it again in 10 or 15 years...

Why aren't people concerned about climate change? I think some are. But people are way more concerned about the money in their bank account. What little there is...

Jon Beck

Trad climber

Oceanside

Dec 11, 2016 - 05:20pm PT

Dave - there is also the concept of doing the right thing. So what if the system takes 13 years to pay off. You gotta factor in electricity going up in cost, and that solar system will last 30+ years.

Why drive a truck, I never understood that. I was just in Texas, everyone has a full size truck and 95% of them have no need for it. I haul more stuff than probably 90% of truck owners and I have never owned a full size truck I use a trailer.

rottingjohnny

Sport climber

Sands Motel , Las Vegas

Dec 11, 2016 - 05:26pm PT

Trucks are like plumes on a Stellar Jay....Men ( boys ) drive trucks thinking it makes their penises bigger and will lead to intercourse and social acceptance...

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Dec 11, 2016 - 05:55pm PT

Why aren't people concerned about climate change? I think some are. But people are way more concerned about the money in their bank account.

sure, you could stop paying your sewer bill too, saves you money, and just do it in your backyard, right?

but for societal reasons (e.g. prevention of various diseases spread in waste) you are required to have a sanitary system, most have city sewer... and you pay.

Now if you thought of the atmosphere as your backyard, (which it is, just up above you) you are dumping that truck exhaust into it and not paying anything at all, even though it is ultimately detrimental to society.

The cost of that dumping is what a carbon tax recovers... it doesn't take away from you, it recoups the cost of your decision to drive your truck and the subsequent release of that CO2.

Chaz

Trad climber

greater Boss Angeles area

Dec 11, 2016 - 06:20pm PT

California just enacted new laws intended to address climate change by doing away with 100,000+ jobs, making the most expensive gasoline and electricity in America more expensive, making food more expensive, and adding $45,000 to the cost of a house.

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-climate-fight-20161108-story.html

That seems like a hell of a lot to spend doing something that will be largely ineffective.

rottingjohnny

Sport climber

Sands Motel , Las Vegas

Dec 11, 2016 - 06:31pm PT

Chaz...Don't fret...Trump will bring them back...Jobs that is...

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Dec 11, 2016 - 06:34pm PT

That seems like a hell of a lot to spend doing something that will be largely ineffective.

if they meet their goal it means a considerable reduction in California's contribution to the CO2 problem...

that's not "largely ineffective."

Chaz

Trad climber

greater Boss Angeles area

Dec 11, 2016 - 06:41pm PT

But there's no way to accomplish the same without making everybody in California less wealthy?

California already has the highest poverty rate in the U.S. as it is, largely because of our high housing costs.

Fat Dad

Trad climber

Los Angeles, CA

Dec 11, 2016 - 06:51pm PT

Also Chaz, some of those estimates are from industries opposed to the measure, and they are often group are often prone to exagerate or provide a worst case estimate. Also, if some of the costs are associated with alternate energy modifications (solar panels and water heaters, etc.) are likely to save homeowners costs over the long run. Honestly, the only reason why some of these features aren't on new builds is because of industry opposition to something over than their standard models. Remember how the auto industry claimed for years how it would be too costly to redesign and build more fuel efficient vehicles?

Also, they reported that the overall impact is small compared to the economy as a whole.

EdBannister

Mountain climber

13,000 feet

Dec 11, 2016 - 07:57pm PT

i am still baffled...

CO2

300, oh no, lets use 400 ppm.

that is 4/100ths of one percent.

By what mechanism does this trace gas alter climate?

If you cannot name the mechanism, you cannot say it is causal.

monolith

climber

state of being

Dec 11, 2016 - 08:00pm PT

Not sure of the name you are looking for but the mechanism is well understood. The co2 molecules average cross section spacing is within the wavelength of a significant amount of energy radiated by the earths surface and causes some energy to be directed back to the surface.

EdBannister

Mountain climber

13,000 feet

Dec 11, 2016 - 08:03pm PT

you believe that?

significant? what is the measured amount?

monolith

climber

state of being

Dec 11, 2016 - 08:05pm PT

Of course, it's been known for more than a hundred years.

EdBannister

Mountain climber

13,000 feet

Dec 11, 2016 - 08:07pm PT

then how do you explain the earth having a CO2 level of over 1,200 ppm for 200 of the last 250 million years?

why didn't we bake?

Ken M

Mountain climber

Los Angeles, Ca

Dec 11, 2016 - 08:11pm PT

A solar installation for my house would cost around $8,000. The power bill savings (average) over a year was estimated at around 50% or $50 a month ($600 a year).

So the payback on the installation is 13 years!!! Who would do that???

here in LA, we are inundated with private companies that want to do exactly that---free to the homeowner.

yes, it makes a difference:

http://www.tellmedwp.com/go/doc/1475/2515498/LADWP-Takes-Next-Step-toward-Eliminating-Coal-Power-from-Navajo-Generating-Station

LOS ANGELES – The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) today took a major step toward reaching Mayor Garcetti’s goal of eliminating coal from its power mix by 2025 by approving an agreement to sell the LADWP’s 21% share in the coal-fired Navajo Generating Station outside of Page, Arizona.

The sale would reduce LADWP’s greenhouse gas emissions by 5.39 million metric tons over the next 3 ½ years—equivalent to taking over one million cars off the road.

Today’s action by the Board of Water and Power Commissioners will also put LADWP on a path to end power deliveries from the plant by mid-2016, about 3 ½ years ahead of the date mandated by State climate change legislation.

Levine said, “Not only will LADWP achieve early compliance with state legislation, we will also save costs, gain valuable transmission assets and receive renewable geothermal power through this agreement.”

The citizens of Ca did not pay for this, the ratepayers of LA have done so.

rbord

Boulder climber

atlanta

Dec 11, 2016 - 08:12pm PT

I am still baffled

With incomplete information, we can remain baffled 24/7 about essentially everything, if that suits our purposes. But the way human brains have evolved to work is that remaining baffled doesn't suit our purposes.

4/100ths of one percent

Plus also it's a teeny molecule. I mean like teeny tiny - smaller even than 4/100ths of one percent! It's so small you can't even see it. That's gotta count for something. I love our human relationship with math.