Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[ohmman]

I only think it will work if it's economically viable. If you have to force it there is to much to gain by cheating.

So... revenue neutral carbon tax. Right?

 

[JRP3]

This is some of the thinking we have to deal with:

Retired science teacher Jane Mann told the publication she was concerned the panels would prevent photosynthesis from occurring, keeping plants, which rely on the chemical process, from growing. Plants in the area around the solar panels are brown and dead due to not getting enough sunlight, Mann claimed.

No reports have yet emerged as to whether science education is also "brown and dead" in Woodland.
Local resident Bobby Mann, for his part, announced he was worried the panels would "suck up all the energy from the sun," the paper said.

http://mashable.com/2015/12/14/town-rejects-solar-panels

 

[nwdiver]

So... revenue neutral carbon tax. Right?

+1

I only think it will work if it's economically viable. If you have to force it there is to much to gain by cheating.

It's not like economic viability is the universal benchmark...

- it's cheaper but illegal to dump your trash in the street; you're FORCED to pay for trash collection.
- it's cheaper but illegal to dump raw sewage; you're FORCED to treat it.
- it's cheaper but illegal for power plants to spew SO2 and Hg; they're FORCED to trap it.

The fact that there's going to be cheaters is a pretty poor reason to scrape a necessary law. That's why we have law enforcement. There's tax cheats... should we scrap all taxes? There are thieves... should stores stop trying to make people pay for stuff they take?

 

[tigerade]

hahaha, this is amazing. If only it weren't so depressing.

Still #NotAScientist - YouTube

 

[rays427]

+1



It's not like economic viability is the universal benchmark...

- it's cheaper but illegal to dump your trash in the street; you're FORCED to pay for trash collection.
- it's cheaper but illegal to dump raw sewage; you're FORCED to treat it.
- it's cheaper but illegal for power plants to spew SO2 and Hg; they're FORCED to trap it.

The fact that there's going to be cheaters is a pretty poor reason to scrape a necessary law. That's why we have law enforcement. There's tax cheats... should we scrap all taxes? There are thieves... should stores stop trying to make people pay for stuff they take?

First of all the Paris Agreement is not a law and cheaters will not be individuals but entire countries.

 

[tigerade]

First of all the Paris Agreement is not a law and cheaters will not be individuals but entire countries.

It sounds like you are basing your argument around the tragedy of the commons
Tragedy of the commons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What I think you are trying to say is that we shouldn't be too excited about the Paris deal because there is a chance that countries like India or China might cheat on the agreement and continue to increase carbon emissions, making the entire deal a failure in the long run, even if countries like the U.S., Canada and France do everything they can to decrease emissions.

If that is what you are arguing, I don't think there is anyone here that disputes the accuracy of the claim. If China or India double or triple their emissions, the world will definitely sail past 2C and maybe 3C.

BUT there is a big hole in the argument that you may be overlooking - China and India have serious problems with smog. In China in particular, authorities are fearful that the decrease of air quality might lead to an increase of popular dissent, something they aren't a big fan of. So even if climate change didn't exist, China might still have a big incentive to decrease emissions anyway.

There is also a counter argument that renewable energy is a worthwhile investment in it's own regard.

HOWEVER you know your own stance way better than me... so I will let you clarify in case I may have misinterpreted.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

Let us not forget that the reason the Paris agreement didn't have more stringent "laws" was concern around Republicans in the US Senate rejecting the agreement, not India or China.

 

[nwdiver]

First of all the Paris Agreement is not a law and cheaters will not be individuals but entire countries.

Yes, I understand that it's not the law... that was my point... it should be the law... it should be a legally binding treaty but half the US Senate lacks the spine to stand up to ignorance and continue to pander to the troglodytes of the United States...

 

[Ryan H]

How would a legally binding treaty work? If China or India fall short, what recourse would other countries have against them?

 

[Johan]

Did anyone consider the fact that other countries (not the US and EU) actually understand the fact that their economic growth will be for nothing if their lands are flooded and population displaced?

 

[AudubonB]

It's not half the Senate; treaty ratifications require a two-thirds vote. So all you need are 34 ignoramuses - and that's a really, really low number, unfortunately.

 

[ohmman]

How would a legally binding treaty work? If China or India fall short, what recourse would other countries have against them?

It would be legally binding within each country. There would not be direct recourse against other nations but there would be within the nations. That is, the US could have legally bound itself to doing what the treaty states. What some of us in the thread are saying is that, while not ideal, that would have been better than nothing. Just as having the treaty is better than not.

 

[Ryan H]

Did anyone consider the fact that other countries (not the US and EU) actually understand the fact that their economic growth will be for nothing if their lands are flooded and population displaced?

If that was the case, would India still be planning on doubling coal output by 2020?
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...-deal-wont-affect-plans-to-double-coal-output

 

[rays427]

It would be legally binding within each country. There would not be direct recourse against other nations but there would be within the nations. That is, the US could have legally bound itself to doing what the treaty states. What some of us in the thread are saying is that, while not ideal, that would have been better than nothing. Just as having the treaty is better than not.

So you actually believe a country would abide by a treaty (even a legally binding one) if their people are out of work because they don't have access to cheap energy? What about all the countries who's economies are based on fossil fuels. There is no way countries like Russia, Nigeria, Angola, etc can replace fossil fuels. As some countries cut their use of fossil fuels the price of it goes down which makes it even more attractive to use. By the way unless we find new ways for heavy transport and air travel we will still need quite a bit of fossil fuels even if we replace all cars and light trucks with electric vehicles. As of now the cost of an electric car is quite a bit more than an ice. Yes it is currently cheaper for fuel but it takes a long time to pay off the difference. We are currently on the PG&E EV-A rate which pays us when our solar panels over produce at a high price and then we charge the car at the low rate. As more and more folks install solar panels that will change. Eventually we will need expensive solar storage and or run some fossil fuel plants to handle the demand during the time that renewables can't produce. The cost to run a plant only part time will be vary expensive. This will greatly increase the cost to charge our cars. Cheap natural gas in the US has given us an economic advantage to other countries. This and the actual boom in the oil industry has been a leading reason that our unemployment rate has gone down. Any country that has access to cheap energy has a competitive advantage and will be able increase the living standard of their folks. I don't think most countries will be willing to give up this advantage.

 

[tigerade]

So you actually believe a country would abide by a treaty (even a legally binding one) if their people are out of work because they don't have access to cheap energy? What about all the countries who's economies are based on fossil fuels. There is no way countries like Russia, Nigeria, Angola, etc can replace fossil fuels. As some countries cut their use of fossil fuels the price of it goes down which makes it even more attractive to use. By the way unless we find new ways for heavy transport and air travel we will still need quite a bit of fossil fuels even if we replace all cars and light trucks with electric vehicles. As of now the cost of an electric car is quite a bit more than an ice. Yes it is currently cheaper for fuel but it takes a long time to pay off the difference. We are currently on the PG&E EV-A rate which pays us when our solar panels over produce at a high price and then we charge the car at the low rate. As more and more folks install solar panels that will change. Eventually we will need expensive solar storage and or run some fossil fuel plants to handle the demand during the time that renewables can't produce. The cost to run a plant only part time will be vary expensive. This will greatly increase the cost to charge our cars. Cheap natural gas in the US has given us an economic advantage to other countries. This and the actual boom in the oil industry has been a leading reason that our unemployment rate has gone down. Any country that has access to cheap energy has a competitive advantage and will be able increase the living standard of their folks. I don't think most countries will be willing to give up this advantage.

All known problems, and none of which will be overcome by not trying.

Here's another one:
The moon is 250,000 miles away
Requires traveling almost 3 kms per second to get there (and then slow down)
Requires almost 7 million pounds of fuel
Requires a rocket that is taller than many skyscrapers
A sophisticated spacecraft that keeps the astronauts alive for days
The ability to land on a surface and then take back off again

If you said that it would be absolutely impossible to do that in 1950, you would be partially correct.

But thousands of people put their passions and intellect into one concentrated effort.

It is going to take millions of people doing the same to solve human-caused climate change. I haven't heard anyone on here say that transitioning away from fossil fuels would be easy, and if they did, they are incorrect. But it's not impossible. But failure to try is the worst kind of failure. And I hope that isn't what you are advocating.

 

[nwdiver]

All known problems, and none of which will be overcome by not trying.

+1

A carbon tariff can level the playing field; Storage is getting cheaper and cheaper... ~$100/kWh likely by 2020. Biofuels can be used for air travel and shipping. Economies dependent on fossil fuels have been living on borrowed time and largely recognize that fact... it's not like they won't run out at some point anyway.

 

[ggies07]

Seth Meyers nails it!

Watch Late Night With Seth Meyers: Paris Climate Change Summit: A Closer Look Online | Hulu

 

[ohmman]

So you actually believe a country would abide by a treaty (even a legally binding one) if their people are out of work because they don't have access to cheap energy? What about all the countries who's economies are based on fossil fuels....Any country that has access to cheap energy has a competitive advantage and will be able increase the living standard of their folks. I don't think most countries will be willing to give up this advantage.

I definitely support a carbon tax. I think this will allow everyone to see the true price of "cheap natural gas" and the like. I'll also say this. For a short period of time when I was younger, I allowed it to bother me that others at my company worked less but were paid more. At some point, I decided to let it go. I concerned myself only with how I performed, and took satisfaction in controlling what I could control. That really marked a turning point in my career and life. I preach this to my kids constantly: worry most about yourself - make sure you're getting your jobs done. I think this applies here as well. Yes, there will be cheaters. There always are. There will be scammers as well. However, if the net is positive enough, dismissing a treaty due to cheaters is the definition of pettiness. It'd be like dumping Medicare because some people scam it. Work on the system, value the good, and try to minimize the downsides. And always do your own best.

We are currently on the PG&E EV-A rate which pays us when our solar panels over produce at a high price and then we charge the car at the low rate. As more and more folks install solar panels that will change. Eventually we will need expensive solar storage and or run some fossil fuel plants to handle the demand during the time that renewables can't produce. The cost to run a plant only part time will be vary expensive. This will greatly increase the cost to charge our cars.

I am in the same position as you. I do the same thing. You're missing the fact that they can invert the tiers, and likely will eventually. You'll be incentivized to charge your car during the sunny hours, thereby consuming your solar before it hits the grid. Storage will exist in the form of your vehicle. Night rates will be more expensive for exactly the reasons you mention. If you're arguing that solar is only a good solution when you're arbitraging rates, your ROI window is a lot narrower than mine.

 

[drinkerofkoolaid]

Anyone aware of any developments with this?

Turning Atmospheric CO2 Into Carbon Nanofibers Could Reduce Global Warming | IFLScience

 

[tigerade]

Woah, it's looking like both the Solar Power ITC and Wind Power PTC are going to get 5 year extensions.

If that is the case, that is huge news.
Update: Republicans set to accept five-year PTC/ITC extensions -Recharge News

More good news today, California rejected utility increases for solar customers:
In key solar decision, California rejects utility plans

And to make it a trifecta, Scotland is going forward with that wind farm that Donald Trump hates: :tongue:
Donald Trump rips Scottish Government After Losing Wind Farm Appeal | Golf Channel