Phasing out fossil fuel subsidies 'could provide half of global carbon target'

[VolkerP]

OK, a joke that must be explained is a bad one.
The analogy between today's system operators and Pinochet is: Someone that threatens with "chaos" if lifted from control might have a questionable agenda. If things keep running like today it surely benefits him but not necessarily those who he claims to serve. Plus they can not guarantee to avoid "chaos" if they keep control - only to fill their own pockets.

 

[Norbert]

OK, a joke that must be explained is a bad one.
The analogy between today's system operators and Pinochet is: Someone that threatens with "chaos" if lifted from control might have a questionable agenda. If things keep running like today it surely benefits him but not necessarily those who he claims to serve. Plus they can not guarantee to avoid "chaos" if they keep control - only to fill their own pockets.

I'm responding to "Pinochet"'s chaos threat by saying "No, you are even more chaotic". The results of climate change will force a much a much larger (and unpleasant) change than changing the auto industry from ICEs to EVs, and the energy system from fossil to renewable (which will eventually be pleasant changes).

So short answer: Yes, I am saying there is a threat of chaos, and there is an agenda: selling EVs and clean energy.

Longer answer: With "system" I mean mostly the agricultural system, and somewhat also the economical system in general, in terms of existing infrastructure, geographical distribution, etc. Ironically those who are usually concerned with stability of existing "systems", are (currently) mostly telling people to ignore climate science completely (partly because they suspect a socialist agenda behind it, or because they are confused by those constant efforts to discredit climate science as science that knows what it is talking about). Now I am saying that if climate science is right (which I think it is, and I spent a relatively large effort on trying to understand what is happening in that area), then the effects of climate change will *eventually* be really bad. One problem is that climate scientists can't really say anymore how bad, because then they just get accused of being "alarmist". Another problem is that it will take some time until the effects become visible at a larger scale (possible after many of us are dead), but that at a certain point, before that, it becomes more and more difficult, if not impossible, to stop these systemic processes (as climate is a "system" as well).

 

[VolkerP]

Agree with everything you say. I go full bore EV and clean energy, minimizing CO2 footprint where I can. Since a message of sparingness doesn't sell well, I need a few examples of "fun" to highlight the sustainable way of living. EV for 2012, electric planes for holiday trips in 2020?

 

[vfx]

http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=6924&mn=1224&pt=msg&mid=11432334

IRS exempts most oil sands crude from spill cleanup tax

When more than 20,000 barrels of fuel leaked from an oil sands crude
pipeline in Michigan in 2010, the government set aside $13 million
from a fund formed for spill cleanup -- and stretched to its limits by
that spring's Gulf of Mexico gusher.

Five months later, the Internal Revenue Service quietly ruled that a
significant portion of the type of Canadian crude flowing through that
Michigan pipeline was exempt from the per-barrel tax created for that
spill-liability fund. The loophole for oil sands fuel, which also
forms the bulk of the crude set to run on the Keystone XL pipeline,
remains in effect today despite congressional proposals to close it....