Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Al Barkamps
Social climber
Red Stick
|
|
DMT Wrote So long as the playing field is level, yes. If you expect me to take unilateral action, I will not.
...classic set up for a Tragedy of the Commons. Bruce K called you out on this. All of us should as well.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
Carbon taxes such as in BC and the initiative in next week's Washington state initiative 732 are only a start, but are far more effective and predictable that cap and trade schemes. You may have heard that the cap and trade in California lately has brought in very little money.
In general the wind, solar and green car incentives are working. No government policy is perfect. We can all find countless flaws and loopholes. For instance California does little about old cars and trucks that are highly polluting, hardly charging any yearly fee. But those flaws pale in comparison to massive climate change.
Yes such taxes need to be national and soon thereafter international. We would need to impose import taxes on countries that don't have a similar tax/incentive/reduction plan, although we might need to give a timeline of penalties.
However by the same reasoning, shouldn't the US + Canada + Mexico, etc be paying high taxes on exports to those countries that already have high carbon taxes/disincentives/policies/low use? (Europe for example)
Washington Initiative 732
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/conservative-economist-supports-carbon-tax-washington-state/
A Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax (just like I said in various posts on Jan 7 2015 here)
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=970221&msg=2559213#msg2559213
This tax is actually opposed by a number of rabid eco-morons like the Sierra Club, who think it should not be revenue neutral and all the money should go to their pet causes.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
Irrelevant arguments:
Hypocrisy
There will always be hypocrites. They are irrelevant. As I said years ago on the other thread, Climate change control is a societal decision, not a personal one. Loopholes and exceptions don't change the science or the general solutions. As long as we have a society with freedom and large inequities, some people consume more than others. You can only provide incentives and disincentives and allow people to make their own choices.
Right now we incentivize large cars, large homes, sprawl, free roads, free emissions, free water pollution from countless spills and leaks, wars for oil, etc.
Airplane business will be hurt.
That is correct. Traveling is a large contributor to climate change.
|
|
snagglepuss
Mountain climber
|
|
Splatter is correct.
We can't solve the problem individually or all at once but we cam modify our lifestyles slightly and help. DMT thinks because he can't fix it himself and fix it today that he has a good reason to give up and quit. He is a tired worn out quitter who will be dealt with through generational turnover.
The best most of us can do is modify our lifestyles (food, mpg, voting choices, etc.) and help a little.
|
|
BobSFrankNose
Social climber
Seattle
|
|
August West, thanks for the cartoon, I looked its source up and it sure seems reliable and fact. Current path seems like the Al Gore predictions are well under way, as in any day now we fry.
Maemute, that is not an intelligent response. Just to be clear on what you are suggesting.
Are you saying that all of the current climate change and/or global warming is 100% human caused?
And, are you stating for a fact that all climate changes/global warming are 100% a result of C02 increases?
Are you also stating as fact that C02 changes are followed by temperature changes and if so, are you 100% dismissing all of the empirical evidence suggesting that C02 follows rather than proceeds temperature changes?
Certainly debatable in the scienetific community, but its still a big and non-consensus question of what comes first - C02 increases or temperature rising.
Careful here!
And, no one wants to answer the questions of what percent we are really responsible for and what percent we can really change or effect?
Am I really helping by driving a Prius while most of middle Africa cooks on open fires with local gathered wood and India and China have no state emission shops for their buggies.
|
|
snagglepuss
Mountain climber
|
|
DMT,
BS!!! You are in favor of quitting because it's hard and scary and uncertain.
If you were in favor of solutions you would have read the few I suggested and taken time to ponder them rather than cherry pick something to refute OUT OF CONTEXT.
Check Mate.
|
|
snagglepuss
Mountain climber
|
|
BobSFN,
Why don't you get off your lazy bum and use that thing the kids call Google?
You are Exhibit A on why this issue rages on. You want someone else to do all the heavy, uncomfortable, difficult lifting for you. Go to the NASA webpage and spend some time reading about climate change. Put on your big boy pants. You can do it.
|
|
snagglepuss
Mountain climber
|
|
Thanks DMT but it's not a game.
|
|
BobSFrankNose
Social climber
Seattle
|
|
Well Snagglepuss, I do, and I read a lot, and it is from Nasa and other webpages (as you call them) that present current and sometimes changing data. Not everything new is a conspiracy against the rich or fittest.
And,thanks for making the partial point that puss'es like you malign the sender rather than defend the questions. Personal attacks do little for mature thinking people.
You are Exhibit A thru Z why people are drifting away from believing in Climate Change. I used believe it and defend it. I thought all the data was in and the science was settled. You, still pushing the old agenda, not willing to accept any new information or challenge the norms (with its obvious apparent political and monetary influences) leads to ignorance.
Go ahead and quote the oft used 97% of researchers or scientist have reached a consensus - but don't bother to look at the independent evidence that this poll or statistic may be flawed. It is!
I honestly see more and more scientist, articles and data moving away from wholly anthropogenic global warming. What was predicted did NOT happen, or is NOT happening. And, 'after the fact' studies do not support the presupposed predictions or computer models.
Look, I have no skin in the game. Just like hearing and knowing the truth. History is full of examples of deniers of some sort or another, but history always vindicates the truth - and I see science and minds changing.
Or, you can continue to hump someone legs hoping for a 'noble' and 'holier than thou' persona.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
It's a good question - thanks for asking it! Like why aren't people more concerned about a Trump presidency? Why aren't more people concerned about a Clinton presidency?
IMHO, the causes and processes and reasons behind people's beliefs and behaviors is quickly becoming a much more important field for us to understand with respect to our species' survival.
But when you ask this question, mostly we jump to conclusions, and solutions, and arguments, without really understanding that those aren't really the questions that we most need to answer.
97% of scientists agree that the pace of climate change we are now seeing is anthropogenic. Yea scientists!
But so what? When you look at who is most or more concerned about it, there's a 30-50% difference in how severe the problem is, based on what? Partisan political association, of course. What do your friends think? How does that belief mesh with the pantheon of other beliefs that help you form your identity?
Who else is not really concerned about climate change? People in countries with high per capita carbon emissions - the US, Australia, Canada, Russia. Not the countries with less information, but the countries with more of a vested interest in believing that it's no big deal.
"Who believes what" is not based on facts.
Given (IMHO) the seriousness of this threat, and the escalating disassociation between humans and knowledge/objective information that we're witnessing in this election, and the increasing freedom that we have to validate and confirm whatever self-serving, bullshit belief we want to confirm, yea, I don't have the answers, but I do think that's the most important question that we're facing today - why do we believe the nonsense we believe?
IMHO, we need to lose our tendency towards the arrogant belief that we humans form beliefs based on objective information, and develop a better understanding of how those human belief processes really work, or it's not going to matter how good our science is, how convincing our arguments are (to ourselves), when we're mostly not even noticing our most important challenge, which IMHO is how to get people to believe the truth.
We're developing more and more powerful tools - more and more scientific understanding of reality, and how to manipulate and affect it. But we're not understanding how we humans who control that power work - how we form beliefs - and that lack of self-understanding is becoming a larger and larger existential threat.
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
To be a leader in Environmentalism you have to practice what you preach.
Look at your complete climbing resume, how many gallons of fuel made that happen?
People hear you say fossil fuels are going to kill humanity; yet you live a high carbon footprint lifestyle.
2016 NIMBY
I admire people that make personal sacrifice for the greater good. But no, I don't expect. I don't see Republicans, who are red in the face about the National Debt, voluntarily making extra tax payments in order to reduce it.
I support policies that would cause societal changes. For instance, I would support ramping up a carbon tax to say $100/tons over the next decade or two. That would make my fossil fuel electricity and my gallons of fuel more expensive.
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
Are you saying that all of the current climate change and/or global warming is 100% human caused?
And, are you stating for a fact that all climate changes/global warming are 100% a result of C02 increases?
Are you also stating as fact that C02 changes are followed by temperature changes and if so, are you 100% dismissing all of the empirical evidence suggesting that C02 follows rather than proceeds temperature changes?
Certainly debatable in the scienetific community, but its still a big and non-consensus question of what comes first - C02 increases or temperature rising.
Careful here!
And, no one wants to answer the questions of what percent we are really responsible for and what percent we can really change or effect?
Am I really helping by driving a Prius while most of middle Africa cooks on open fires with local gathered wood and India and China have no state emission shops for their buggies.
When you run computers that try and reproduce the climate/temperature changes of the past (going back as far as any sort of useful data can be determined), you can get good results when you include the rapid rise in CO2 of the last few decades. Without including that extra CO2, you can't reproduce the recent rise in temperatures. For practical purposes, all of the increase in the last 100 years CO2 is manmade. You don't get that quick of changes in CO2 from natural causes. (Volcanoes have some effect but the effect from volcanoes can be modeled, certainly over the last dozen decades when CO02 has really started rising.
|
|
Curt
climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
|
|
You are Exhibit A thru Z why people are drifting away from believing in Climate Change. I used believe it and defend it. I thought all the data was in and the science was settled.
That's because the science is settled.
I honestly see more and more scientist, articles and data moving away from wholly anthropogenic global warming.
Well, nobody ever said global warming was caused 100% by anthropogenic causes. Mankind is clearly driving it though.
What was predicted did NOT happen, or is NOT happening. And, 'after the fact' studies do not support the presupposed predictions or computer models.
You couldn't possibly be more wrong about that. While we can't prove that global warming is causing the weird weather events we are experiencing, the increasing drought in the southwest, increased rains and flooding in the midwest and east, etc. are exactly what the global warming model predicted.
Curt
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
From a technical and economic perspective, I think drastic changes all possible over a few decades.
Politically. no.
|
|
Flip Flop
climber
Earth Planet, Universe
|
|
We've got enough popcorn and it's getting to the exciting part.
|
|
guyman
Social climber
Moorpark, CA.
|
|
I am very lucky to live "in the age of the car" .... I get to go climbing almost every weekend to some far away place, like Bishop or the Valley.
I pack on about 25,000 mile per year in my Honda.
You all can give up your cars, stop flying around and ride a bike everyplace.... think about all the GOOD your doing, my my... think about this... China is building new coal powered electrical plants at a furious pace...
we cant do squat to change it.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
The new electric Chevy Bolt has a range of 238 miles per EPA, maybe 200 miles in real life, with a 60 kW-hr battery. 0-60mph in 6.3 sec. If you really want more I'm sure you could figure out how to add another 30 kW-hr backup. People with home solar panels use little net electricity even with an e-car.
They don't have the fast charging network of Tesla yet, but e-cars and chargers are still new and improving.
Thanks to government incentives!
|
|
skitch
Gym climber
Bend Or
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 4, 2016 - 06:49pm PT
|
Thank god I don't have kids, and don't plan too. If I did I'd feel really guilty about the shape earth is, & will be. I just selfishly hope that I can afford to retire in 17 years, and the places I love aren't too miserable to enjoy from April to November.
|
|
BobSFrankNose
Social climber
Seattle
|
|
A couple of questions: Again, I really don’t have any skin in the game in that I am an absolute denier – nor am I a fanatical promoter of saving the planet from almost certain impending doom. Just an observer that likes to eventually find out the truth!
Malemut – your answer to several of my questions states that it is a biased and useless question. What parts? Are we, or are we not - as humans - responsible for the climate change? If we are, then how did we do it If we are not, then what can we do about it – realistically percentage wise. Your just parroting talking points.
You say: show me in Nature and Science. Nature and Science have been wrong before – and admitted it. In the late 80’s, Science published an article on psychiatric discriminates. It was peer reviewed and accepted. It was also published in the sister magazine in England – Nature. Turns out that most of the data – peer reviewed – was wrong and blatantly bogus. Companies developing patents around the new technology and data base lost hundreds of millions of dollars. They, of course, tried to sue, but Science just parroted: Peer reviewed, not our fault, peer reviewed, not our fault. Case closed.
Which brings up the publications of peer reviewed scientific articles. Isn’t that exactly what most of the Climate Gate 2009 email exposure was about – that of Michael Mann and Phil Jones (and dozens of others) regulating, overseeing, and controlling what was considered peer reviewed and acceptable? Seems that it was. And, regardless of how many you have personally read, cross-referenced, believe or support, or think were wrong or would ignore – thousands can’t all be wrong or made up or swept under a rug.
Take the time to read the whole story in whatever publication you believe – they all can’t be wrong. You have to admit –there was serious smoke that erupted in fire there and lead many to take a second look at the so called facts of the science and the publications - all peer reviewed!
So Malemut, I am taking the time to read basic stuff – and I get more enlightened about the possibility of overstating or exaggeration with everything I currently read – peer reviewed – of course.
I get what August West is saying – and I mostly believe it. Running computer models seems like a good way to start – but why different results now from what they really predicted and claim they initially got. I get that the emergency had to go out and the call to arms needed to be made – but for what reason, now - looking back.
Curt suggest that the science is settled. OK,(I don’t agree that science is ever settled ) but say it is regarding C02 and green house effects and everything else we currently understand about reflections, etc. So, again, why nothing happening. He suggests it is happening.
Really, watch Al Gore (and all of the Michael Mann/Phil Jones minions) again. Listen to their prophecies. Look at their time table and doomsday clock. It’s up, and nothing happened. Florida under water? Manhattan with water in the streets to mid town? North Pole will be ice free by 2015?
No Rapture, no Y2K, no mass migrations around the world and crop failures, nothing. But, global warming alarmist always get a pass. Because no matter what happens, it’s a change in the weather – so see, I told you so. Some warm areas, some cold, some rain somewhere, some hurricanes – like we have a real conceptual grasp of anything but the last few hundred years to compare to.
Is there more to this rush to judgment than saving the planet? Could it be money or global-political social engineering? What really drives the hysteria.
Why isn’t Malemut or Curt or others more worried about the Carrington Event in 1859 happening again – we are overdue! Why not freak out and try to warn everyone about the near miss reported on the NASA website of July 2012 when a huge coronal mass ejection tore through the earth’s orbit, but earth wasn’t home for the event – just barely missed us.
So, again I ask.
What percent of climate change are we humans responsible for?
Is it all the industrial age?
What percent of climate change is the rascally U.S. responsible for?
If we turn off the lights in the U.S., what percent of change will result in saving the world/planet? 1%? 10%? 0%?
If the whole world turns off the lights and goes completely out of business – what changes will result at this point in saving the planet?
My prediction, my computer model. Nothing will happen significantly in the coming years. The earth will roll on and absorb the mess (as it has before). Technology will vastly improve the C02 problem and a number of other so-called life threatening events.
Just my 2cents and now I'm bored with it.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!