Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Pepperkorn

Climate change debate data

34 posts in this topic

Ivory tusks raise a sh!t load of money.  fvck the elephants - make money!

 

Most people aren't that comfortable being honest about that outlook.  There are other constructive options and you're choosing the destructive one.  It's not a wise maximum gain choice as you're kind of implying. It's more of an unapologetic instant gratification maximum high kind of choice even as you describe it. So that's the new challenge helping people really comprehend the impact of their choices, on an individual basis, as well as a grand scheme.  BTW - despite my example, I do not think it's morally reprehensible a la the elephants, I think based on what the public really knows of the subject, it's just being short-sighted for convenience sake.

 

Right now, it's such a highly subjective thing we can't really get into it.  My grabbing google insta-facts all slap-dash while you're doing the same isn't going to convince anyone of anything except perhaps that my grandfather passed down some serious arguing talent so that I - a generation removed from a professional - can still hold my own with a first line trained lawyer.  :uni:  I totally agree with much of what you say except I think your current forgone conclusion is wrong - so that means the word getting out there needs to be honed more now.

 

Also - just an FYI - I don't follow mainstream media or blogs or any of that. I don't follow global warming alarmist sights or publications. I pretty much listen to NPR on my work commute, watch nature programs on PBS, read Scientific American and American Scientist as well as receive Science and Nature which is pretty much over my head half the time.  Oh and I can't leave out my "friend" barrage of really weak gibberings on facebook posts.

 

Ha, this is pretty lame.

 

I'm not talking about whether people ought to refrain, or perhaps even be legally compelled from making or buying luxury goods that serve no or very little purpose and are harmful to the environment (or cause any other unacceptable externalities).  In fact, I'm not even talking about whether someone should be forced to buy a more fuel efficient car and that enormous SUVs should be taken off the market. 

 

You were talking about how we need to start a massive civilizational undertaking to move towards renewables and that techological innovation would be sure to follow.  I gave you concrete numbers that show that even under the most ideal scenarios (that are completely unrealistic in and of themselves), at least solar power cannot come even close to fulfilling even the most basic energy needs of a functioning modern economy, and that you ought to be honest that renewables would cut into the wealth of ordinary people, rather than just meaning that the Monopoly Man won't be able to buy another ivory encrusted mononcle.  If you think I'm wrong, or that it's just a matter of indulging our fellow citizens too much, I suggest that you attempt to see how well you would do by getting at least 20 percent of your own evidently Spartan energy needs fulfilled by solar.  (I would say wind, but that depends on whether someone else built wind turbines in your area.  You can at least put solar panels on your home).  Believe me, after a few weeks you'll be begging the Koch Brothers to double their efforts to explore for fossil fuels. 

Edited by Daniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmeh --  :urg:  the ivory thing was just an impetuous over-statement on my part and clearly only served to cloud the issue.  It's a weakness of mine. Mocking/overstating assuming people will keep things in perspective despite the fact I get to toss in a lameass pot shot.

 

The conclusion I have drawn from your posts is that the next line of communication needs to be helping people to understand the economic impact being handed down to each individual with the use of non-renewables.  You clearly understand a benefit.  You do not understand or care about the indirect costs you, yourself are paying.  Society does not care about the indirect costs of non-renewables.  Yet the sole argument against renewables is the economic cost to the individual.  The fossil fuel industries cost to us is irrelevant but the renewables cost is the complete reason for not investing.

 

I do think you're justifying a short-sighted, lazy, selfish view.  Fossils fuels are easy for us. Yet we should understand they are costing us a lot. The economic benefit you describe seems pretty myopic.  Based upon your reasoning for not using renewables, we are not benefiting financially nearly as much as we should be from the non-renewables. The oil industry is benefiting the most, unless your family is in that, you aren't seeing any significant amount of the actual benefit. In using non-renewables, we are putting a MUCH higher percentage of total revenue into the pockets of the non-renewable industries than with renewables.  That's just simple logic. 

 

The renewables industry sacrifices profit for competitive pricing. Oil jacks up cost for maximum profits, precisely because the kind of reasoning you describe allows them to.  Fossil fuels infrastructure is in place, it's a well established pipeline (figuratively).  Please do not hand me they are the good guys and Al Gore & Co. wants to rob you blind and line their own pockets (the invocation of Al Gore by the way, is the equivalent to calling the Oil industry The Bushes. It's a hyperbolic euphemism with implied derision.  I have more in common politically with GWB than I do with any Gore, with maybe the exception of Lesley).

 

Oil has you by the short and curlies -- please dont tell me they dont.  It's not free.   Yes - it's currently monetarily cheaper - I feel like you're trying to say that equates to the individual generating personal revenue.  It's not. I'm fine with you saying it's a very short-term gain - but long-term enough for you to reap a relatively minor benefit for yourself. For the time being we get to keep a little more in our pocket using fossil fuel. 

 

Now on this point I think you totally misunderstand me. I am saying invest in research -- invest in technology NOW.  Right now, true, making the choice to use renewables does amount to a less efficient product at a higher cost because you are bearing the cost of technology development but that's far from my main point. You are clearly doing the same -- the exact same thing with oil.  You are paying a premium you do not have to be paying -- for technology development that we know will be obsolete and exploratory research.  The more revenue put into non-renewables, the FASTER the investment becomes useless!  Because you're pouring sand down a rat hole.  This is logical.  but you dont give a fvck.  There.  So as I said  THE NEXT STEP IS TO HELP PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHY THEY NEED TO GIVE A fvck. I do like the smoking/tobacco industry analogy for fossil fuel but I suppose I'll keep it off the table if you want to use my lame analogies to obfuscate my point. (I'm kidding here with the analogy thing - I mean we all know it's my GIGANTIC RAGING communication flaw.  It's why I love Chico Resch - I so get him.)

 

 

( FYI - with regarding to the implication I'd invoke the Koch Bros as some evil empire -- I want the Koch Bros to keep their industry going -- I do.  We have some seriously vital petroleum based products I value far more than fuel.  I love the new book on them -- it puts their motivations into more accurate perspective.  Well -- from what I've skimmed of it. :blush:)

Edited by Pepperkorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmeh --  :urg:  the ivory thing was just an impetuous over-statement on my part and clearly only served to cloud the issue.  It's a weakness of mine. Mocking/overstating assuming people will keep things in perspective despite the fact I get to toss in a lameass pot shot.

 

The conclusion I have drawn from your posts is that the next line of communication needs to be helping people to understand the economic impact being handed down to each individual with the use of non-renewables.  You clearly understand a benefit.  You do not understand or care about the indirect costs you, yourself are paying.  Society does not care about the indirect costs of non-renewables.  Yet the sole argument against renewables is the economic cost to the individual.  The fossil fuel industries cost to us is irrelevant but the renewables cost is the complete reason for not investing.

 

I do think you're justifying a short-sighted, lazy, selfish view.  Fossils fuels are easy for us. Yet we should understand they are costing us a lot. The economic benefit you describe seems pretty myopic.  Based upon your reasoning for not using renewables, we are not benefiting financially nearly as much as we should be from the non-renewables. The oil industry is benefiting the most, unless your family is in that, you aren't seeing any significant amount of the actual benefit. In using non-renewables, we are putting a MUCH higher percentage of total revenue into the pockets of the non-renewable industries than with renewables.  That's just simple logic. 

 

The renewables industry sacrifices profit for competitive pricing. Oil jacks up cost for maximum profits, precisely because the kind of reasoning you describe allows them to.  Fossil fuels infrastructure is in place, it's a well established pipeline (figuratively).  Please do not hand me they are the good guys and Al Gore & Co. wants to rob you blind and line their own pockets (the invocation of Al Gore by the way, is the equivalent to calling the Oil industry The Bushes. It's a hyperbolic euphemism with implied derision.  I have more in common politically with GWB than I do with any Gore, with maybe the exception of Lesley).

 

Oil has you by the short and curlies -- please dont tell me they dont.  It's not free.   Yes - it's currently monetarily cheaper - I feel like you're trying to say that equates to the individual generating personal revenue.  It's not. I'm fine with you saying it's a very short-term gain - but long-term enough for you to reap a relatively minor benefit for yourself. For the time being we get to keep a little more in our pocket using fossil fuel. 

 

Now on this point I think you totally misunderstand me. I am saying invest in research -- invest in technology NOW.  Right now, true, making the choice to use renewables does amount to a less efficient product at a higher cost because you are bearing the cost of technology development but that's far from my main point. You are clearly doing the same -- the exact same thing with oil.  You are paying a premium you do not have to be paying -- for technology development that we know will be obsolete and exploratory research.  The more revenue put into non-renewables, the FASTER the investment becomes useless!  Because you're pouring sand down a rat hole.  This is logical.  but you dont give a fvck.  There.  So as I said  THE NEXT STEP IS TO HELP PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHY THEY NEED TO GIVE A fvck. I do like the smoking/tobacco industry analogy for fossil fuel but I suppose I'll keep it off the table if you want to use my lame analogies to obfuscate my point. (I'm kidding here with the analogy thing - I mean we all know it's my GIGANTIC RAGING communication flaw.  It's why I love Chico Resch - I so get him.)

 

 

( FYI - with regarding to the implication I'd invoke the Koch Bros as some evil empire -- I want the Koch Bros to keep their industry going -- I do.  We have some seriously vital petroleum based products I value far more than fuel.  I love the new book on them -- it puts their motivations into more accurate perspective.  Well -- from what I've skimmed of it. :blush:)

 

What has me by the short and curlies is that the people that actually know a thing or two about how to deliver societies' energy needs (i.e., that evil word the "market") have concluded that we just get a lot more bang for our buck out of fossil fuels than any other energy source.  Or I definitely trust it a lot more than some politician that read the latest issue of Wired and went to a Sierra Club meeting and thinks he now knows what he's talking about. 

 

Now, you are right that the market generally does not account for externalities, unless it's forced to.  Most of the time, this isn't that much of a problem.  So if mean oil company spills a bunch of oil in the ocean, big meanie oil company (and its insurers) have to pay for the cleanup and other damages and those costs generally get passed on to the consumer. 

 

The problem with carbon emissions is that the externalities are impossible to measure, to the point that anyone with a political agenda can just chalk something that goes bad in the world to global warming, and conclude that's what a gallon of gas really costs.  Until we knock off that kind of sh!t, the "honest conversation" is never going to happen, and I'll just go back to watching the The First 48. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The existence of anthropogenic climate change (which to me is, by definition, the existence of externalities) used to be the unprovable sticking point. 

 

Now you say yes there are externalities, this is a fact, but they are immeasurable so we should just stay the course.

 

I have said why I feel that's a mistake, and how this then provides the next step in the discussion of cutting back on the use of fossil fuel when possible.  We have nothing further to discuss as far as either of us moving from our current stance.  I have understood that from the outset and why I keep on restating it in each post I make.

 

I think it's a shame to demand money been put into measuring the immeasurable (proving anthropomorphic climate change was formerly the unprovable in the discussion, so I do consider this rather tongue in cheek) when we could simply cut to the chase, make meaningful investment into alternative energy sources thereby conserving fuel for the more meaningful benefit.

 

Climate change or no, significant externalities or no, fossil fuel is running out.  That's the only thing I can hold up to you for the time being. 

 

Oil companies are not the bad guy - I'm not saying that - its not part of my discussion. They have to be brought into the conversation when Al Gore is held up as the evil corporate conglomerate out to scam the world out of the oil magnates capital gains.  That's just so ridiculous. 

 

So let me state again,  the oil industry should survive - MUST survive.  That is precisely why we need to come up with alternate fuel sources.  Petroleum based products are currently vital to life on earth.  Many of the advantages they provide do not have viable, much less equivalent, alternatives.  They make the world a better place to cop HBO's Silcon Valley catch phrase.  We're wasting this hugely important limited resource on a destructive (you have said that's a given, despite the fact the precise externalities are immeasurable) personal energy source that has perfectly viable alternatives. 

 

I think that's irresponsible.  As for my own carbon footprint - I'm not proud of it, but I'm certainly better than most, right down to negative population growth. I'm sort of the wrong person to point to for that - nothing made me happier than being forced to run on limited power during the hurricane Sandy aftermath.  I was depressed when power came back after 7 days. I'm kind of noted for that on this site even... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The existence of anthropogenic climate change (which to me is, by definition, the existence of externalities) used to be the unprovable sticking point. 

 

Now you say yes there are externalities, this is a fact, but they are immeasurable so we should just stay the course.

 

I have said why I feel that's a mistake, and how this then provides the next step in the discussion of cutting back on the use of fossil fuel when possible.  We have nothing further to discuss as far as either of us moving from our current stance.  I have understood that from the outset and why I keep on restating it in each post I make.

 

I think it's a shame to demand money been put into measuring the immeasurable (proving anthropomorphic climate change was formerly the unprovable in the discussion, so I do consider this rather tongue in cheek) when we could simply cut to the chase, make meaningful investment into alternative energy sources thereby conserving fuel for the more meaningful benefit.

 

Climate change or no, significant externalities or no, fossil fuel is running out.  That's the only thing I can hold up to you for the time being. 

 

Oil companies are not the bad guy - I'm not saying that - its not part of my discussion. They have to be brought into the conversation when Al Gore is held up as the evil corporate conglomerate out to scam the world out of the oil magnates capital gains.  That's just so ridiculous. 

 

So let me state again,  the oil industry should survive - MUST survive.  That is precisely why we need to come up with alternate fuel sources.  Petroleum based products are currently vital to life on earth.  Many of the advantages they provide do not have viable, much less equivalent, alternatives.  They make the world a better place to cop HBO's Silcon Valley catch phrase.  We're wasting this hugely important limited resource on a destructive (you have said that's a given, despite the fact the precise externalities are immeasurable) personal energy source that has perfectly viable alternatives. 

 

I think that's irresponsible.  As for my own carbon footprint - I'm not proud of it, but I'm certainly better than most, right down to negative population growth. I'm sort of the wrong person to point to for that - nothing made me happier than being forced to run on limited power during the hurricane Sandy aftermath.  I was depressed when power came back after 7 days. I'm kind of noted for that on this site even... 

 

I am not saying that we should "stay the course".  Frankly, I have no idea whether we should or should not, or really whether we have much choice in the matter.  All I'm asking for is a little bit of clarity and honesty when it comes to people telling me what the costs and benefits of staying the course are versus the costs and benefits of whatever solution or solutions people have in mind.

 

That means being honest about how practical renewables actually are (they really aren't for the reasons I've described ad nauseum), how much will society need to cut its energy consumption, what technological advancements are realistic, and what the costs of global warming actually are, i.e. not chalking up all of society's ills or every hurricane to global warming.  It also means not accusing anyone who asks these questions of being funded by the Koch brothers.   I don't really think this is too much to ask.  

 

Now, maybe none of this is possible.  In that instance then, I say tough luck.  As obtuse as that sounds, I'm actually being more generous than people who believe a calamity is just around the corner.  I actually don't know if there's anything we can do about global warming and what the consequence will be, but I try to be as responsible as I can when it comes to my own energy consumption.  There are people that believe even exaggerated worst case scenarios are a certainty, yet all they do is buy a hybrid car and turn off the lights during earth hour.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well -- the second time today I have to resort to "I hear that" 

I'm in total agreement.  I think people have to get off the alarmist horse - it's crying wolf.  Even while the economic disparity in the middle east may be cause for the rise of terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda -- seriously -- you can leap to global warming causes terrorism?  I love that one  :wub:

 

One thing I don't consider alarmist - it is real, it's happening and will significantly impact life on earth regardless of specific size of the rise - I do think the water levels are rising - I do think this is due to anthropogenic climate change.  I am skimming The Sixth Extinction now - I find her evidence compelling though the alarmist tone is off-putting.  The whole fvcking expression inconvenient truth just sucks.  It really sums it up well  and I HATE THAT!  But that's just my own torment. 

 

The problem is that a lot of the alarmist stuff is hilarious and has partial truth.  Like my ivory tusk thing.  But it's so freaking pretentious, patronizing -- misleading -- it's like a elitist private joke "I'm joking but there is truth to it" "There IS -- you should just say it -- people are so simple minded they wont understand the truth -- put it this way and they'll see the urgency"  -- well everyone does understand it's NOT TRUE  and it comes off as alarmist bullsh!t.  And that does nothing but hide the truth.  You have to comb scientific peer reviewed publications - comb through who those peers really are, CONFIRM results are repeatable and just plain true.  Is it TRUE?  A lot of it is -- but it's impossible to get it out over the alarmist stuff that makes headlines stirs up a fervor and sells papers and programming. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well -- the second time today I have to resort to "I hear that" 

I'm in total agreement.  I think people have to get off the alarmist horse - it's crying wolf.  Even while the economic disparity in the middle east may be cause for the rise of terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda -- seriously -- you can leap to global warming causes terrorism?  I love that one  :wub:

 

 

 

Sorry about that then.  I'm so used to hearing people that call some claims exaggerated being deniers, and on the level of creationists, that I kind of assume that's what other people are thinking.

 

It kind of reminds me of the exaggerated claims of secondhand smoke.  When you calmly point out that there is no evidence linking second hand smoke to the thousands of deaths that are claimed in the anti-smoking ads, and when you point out to people that even the studies that say secondhand smoke is bad don't make any such claims, you are called a lackey of the cigarette industry.  I suppose they deserve it.  I mean, who wants to say that smoking isn't THAT bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The link above doesn't really work for me.  It's an editorial review of one paper referenced mostly in pop culture (twitter and facebook) for it's data about natural gas being an ineffective alternative fuel source as far as carbon footprint goes. Not one scientific article is produced to support the authors opinion-stated-as-fact.  Not even one legitimate citation beyond the article he's railing against.

 

I appreciate your parenthetical 'at least according to this guy' -- but that's kind of the whole thing of it - not just a brief aside.  It's some dude's railing - It's a thought... but it's not particularly compelling and certainly not representative of any scientific consensus.

 

ANYHOW - I thought this was fun for many a debate here (Not you Daniel - but other people I've tried to discuss stuff with) :

 

10 Scientific Ideas Scientists Wish You Would Stop Misusing

Edited by Pepperkorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0