|
The same way Hydrogen can be farmed from Oceans and then burned to make more Water.Gas is renewable? How the f+@! is gas renewable? It's a fossil fuel. By definition, it's not renewable.Methane etc can be harvested from farm waste and landfills.
Not sure how that is done but i have seen the farm one in action, basically shovel the poo into a big balloon and capture what nature produces.
It is quite possible to produce usable quantities of methane from farming waste as a byproduct of animals (and humans) metabolizing food. IIRC human and pig waste might be the most effective. It is less efficient energetically than producing biofuels directly from plants but it gives us bacon.
|
|
Gas is great and renewable. the biggest issues with wind and solar is storage, they only produce under some circumstancesNatural Gas in harvestable quantity is a fossil fuel, usually discovered as a by product of finding oil pockets. Where do you get this renewable from?
Google it. Farms are starting to power themselves and sell extra back into the electrical grid with this tech. might be the real reliable "green" energy of the future.....
|
|
It is quite possible to produce usable quantities of methane from farming waste as a byproduct of animals (and humans) metabolizing food. IIRC human and pig waste might be the most effective. It is less efficient energetically than producing biofuels directly from plants but it gives us bacon.
Dairy farms. they will always have a large number of animals and cows are great at making methane.
|
|
It is quite possible to produce usable quantities of methane from farming waste as a byproduct of animals (and humans) metabolizing food. IIRC human and pig waste might be the most effective. It is less efficient energetically than producing biofuels directly from plants but it gives us bacon.
It's certainly a good idea and good tech. It'll help.
It's still a horribly inefficient means of producing energy though. The farms that do it make more electricity than they use, but they still have huge oil inputs into the process. Even most forms of biofuels from plants barely break even, given the energy costs of growing the plants.
Similarly with garbage methane production. It's great way of recapturing some of the energy put into the stuff, but it's not actually an energy source. It would be better to not make and throw away so much stuff in the first place.And calling natural gas renewable because of this kind of technology is a joke. The vast majority of natural gas is fossil fuel, extracted through more and more risky techniques. Encouraging natural gas because some tiny fraction of it is made from waste is dangerous. It's like claiming oil is a renewable resource because we can make biodiesel.
The trick is to make it easier for more farms and landfills to have the tech to make use of waste both to not let it really be waste so much and to actually produce some energy instead of simply take it. It is not a replacement for current energy sources but can be one reasonable step to a lower waste renewable energy source, because face it we WILL produce waste so it is best to make use of it.
The main point of the renewable gas is such: pig and dairy farms will produce animal waste. It can be thrown away producing nothing or it can be used to make gas and fertilizer. So if we get the animal waste anyway it's better to use it for something gaining extra profit from animal feed that was bought than let it, uh, well waste.
On the plus side, there is evidence to suggest that the world population will level out around 10 billion people, particularly if we can improve the lives of the poor in the worst countries right now by improving child mortality rates.
|
Irontruth, actually decreasing child mortality without other changes would cause population to skyrocket. The factor which really leads to declining birth rates is when women are educated and allowed to work and support themselves.
On the thread in general. My answer to the whole 'finite resources' thing is, "look up".
Any and all relatively 'immediate' problems (e.g. AGW, Peak Oil, global recession, et cetera) could be solved by switching from fossil fuels to solar and wind power. Which will happen just as soon as governments stop propping up fossil fuels with ludicrously massive subsidies... though it is beginning to look like they won't dare do that until after solar becomes cheaper even than heavily subsidized fossil fuel prices. Which should be some time before 2020.
While human stupidity makes anything possible there is nothing in current trends that would force or even favor a collapse of society. On the contrary, we are heading towards a time of vast unknowable potential.
The sad part is: A low child mortality is not going to be a problem for long. Read up on antibiotics and the projected new ones and you'll see why.
The main point of the renewable gas is such: pig and dairy farms will produce animal waste. It can be thrown away producing nothing or it can be used to make gas and fertilizer. So if we get the animal waste anyway it's better to use it for something gaining extra profit from animal feed that was bought than let it, uh, well waste.
It takes more energy to produce the food that the animals consume than you recover from their waste. Cattle are by far the worste for this, and if we lower our beef consumption we will reduce energy costs. This is a form of energy conservation, not energy production.
Hmmm.. what about tubes full of GM bacterium cranking out methane...
|
|
Irontruth, actually decreasing child mortality without other changes would cause population to skyrocket. The factor which really leads to declining birth rates is when women are educated and allowed to work and support themselves.
On the thread in general. My answer to the whole 'finite resources' thing is, "look up".
Any and all relatively 'immediate' problems (e.g. AGW, Peak Oil, global recession, et cetera) could be solved by switching from fossil fuels to solar and wind power. Which will happen just as soon as governments stop propping up fossil fuels with ludicrously massive subsidies... though it is beginning to look like they won't dare do that until after solar becomes cheaper even than heavily subsidized fossil fuel prices. Which should be some time before 2020.
While human stupidity makes anything possible there is nothing in current trends that would force or even favor a collapse of society. On the contrary, we are heading towards a time of vast unknowable potential.
Wind and solar both take resources to harvest. storage is an issue. Some environmentalists will call for a halt on global cooling and slowing the winds
Wind and solar both take resources to harvest. storage is an issue. Some environmentalists will call for a halt on global cooling and slowing the windsIrontruth, actually decreasing child mortality without other changes would cause population to skyrocket. The factor which really leads to declining birth rates is when women are educated and allowed to work and support themselves.
On the thread in general. My answer to the whole 'finite resources' thing is, "look up".
Any and all relatively 'immediate' problems (e.g. AGW, Peak Oil, global recession, et cetera) could be solved by switching from fossil fuels to solar and wind power. Which will happen just as soon as governments stop propping up fossil fuels with ludicrously massive subsidies... though it is beginning to look like they won't dare do that until after solar becomes cheaper even than heavily subsidized fossil fuel prices. Which should be some time before 2020.
While human stupidity makes anything possible there is nothing in current trends that would force or even favor a collapse of society. On the contrary, we are heading towards a time of vast unknowable potential.
What resources does it take to harvest wind and solar? Do you mean the initial infrastructure investment? Then sure. Once it's there, though, there's nothing to do but sit back.
Storage is an issue, albeit a relatively minor one. Battery technology is advancing pretty quickly these days.
Your last statement is bonkers, and an example of why no one around here takes you seriously.
Wind and solar both take resources to harvest. storage is an issue. Some environmentalists will call for a halt on global cooling and slowing the windsIrontruth, actually decreasing child mortality without other changes would cause population to skyrocket. The factor which really leads to declining birth rates is when women are educated and allowed to work and support themselves.
On the thread in general. My answer to the whole 'finite resources' thing is, "look up".
Any and all relatively 'immediate' problems (e.g. AGW, Peak Oil, global recession, et cetera) could be solved by switching from fossil fuels to solar and wind power. Which will happen just as soon as governments stop propping up fossil fuels with ludicrously massive subsidies... though it is beginning to look like they won't dare do that until after solar becomes cheaper even than heavily subsidized fossil fuel prices. Which should be some time before 2020.
While human stupidity makes anything possible there is nothing in current trends that would force or even favor a collapse of society. On the contrary, we are heading towards a time of vast unknowable potential.
What resources does it take to harvest wind and solar? Do you mean the initial infrastructure investment? Then sure. Once it's there, though, there's nothing to do but sit back.
Storage is an issue, albeit a relatively minor one. Battery technology is advancing pretty quickly these days.
Your last statement is bonkers, and an example of why no one around here takes you seriously.
Well, to be fair there are environmentalists who caution about potential negative side effects of alternative energy sources. They all can have negative effects on the ecosystems.
Solar cell production requires large ammounts of hazardous materials with poor disposal methods.
Wind farms alter wind paths, especially when used in large volumes. In order to generate power, they have to remove it from the atmosphere. The effects on weather patterns are unknown.
Hydro does nasty things the local wildlife, completely altering the ecosystem of the river.
|
|
Wind and solar both take resources to harvest. storage is an issue. Some environmentalists will call for a halt on global cooling and slowing the windsIrontruth, actually decreasing child mortality without other changes would cause population to skyrocket. The factor which really leads to declining birth rates is when women are educated and allowed to work and support themselves.
On the thread in general. My answer to the whole 'finite resources' thing is, "look up".
Any and all relatively 'immediate' problems (e.g. AGW, Peak Oil, global recession, et cetera) could be solved by switching from fossil fuels to solar and wind power. Which will happen just as soon as governments stop propping up fossil fuels with ludicrously massive subsidies... though it is beginning to look like they won't dare do that until after solar becomes cheaper even than heavily subsidized fossil fuel prices. Which should be some time before 2020.
While human stupidity makes anything possible there is nothing in current trends that would force or even favor a collapse of society. On the contrary, we are heading towards a time of vast unknowable potential.
What resources does it take to harvest wind and solar? Do you mean the initial infrastructure investment? Then sure. Once it's there, though, there's nothing to do but sit back.
Storage is an issue, albeit a relatively minor one. Battery technology is advancing pretty quickly these days.
Your last statement is bonkers, and an example of why no one around here takes you seriously.
We have a windfarm project basically in my back yard being fought tooth and nail over safety concerns and birds. I am not the one making these wacky ass arguments.
http://edgemagazine.net/2009/04/wind-turbines/http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/smart-takes/do-wind-farms-have-a-negative-e ffect-on-the-environment/26086
Im sure there are more but screw looking it all up. the point is that there are those that will oppose it for all sorts of reasons that may or may not be right
|
|
Wind and solar both take resources to harvest. storage is an issue. Some environmentalists will call for a halt on global cooling and slowing the windsIrontruth, actually decreasing child mortality without other changes would cause population to skyrocket. The factor which really leads to declining birth rates is when women are educated and allowed to work and support themselves.
On the thread in general. My answer to the whole 'finite resources' thing is, "look up".
Any and all relatively 'immediate' problems (e.g. AGW, Peak Oil, global recession, et cetera) could be solved by switching from fossil fuels to solar and wind power. Which will happen just as soon as governments stop propping up fossil fuels with ludicrously massive subsidies... though it is beginning to look like they won't dare do that until after solar becomes cheaper even than heavily subsidized fossil fuel prices. Which should be some time before 2020.
While human stupidity makes anything possible there is nothing in current trends that would force or even favor a collapse of society. On the contrary, we are heading towards a time of vast unknowable potential.
What resources does it take to harvest wind and solar? Do you mean the initial infrastructure investment? Then sure. Once it's there, though, there's nothing to do but sit back.
Storage is an issue, albeit a relatively minor one. Battery technology is advancing pretty quickly these days.
Your last statement is bonkers, and an example of why no one around here takes you seriously.
Well, to be fair there are environmentalists who caution about potential negative side effects of alternative energy sources. They all can have negative effects on the ecosystems.
Solar cell production requires large ammounts of hazardous materials with poor disposal methods.
Wind farms alter wind paths, especially when used in large volumes. In order to generate power, they have to remove it from the...
Yep but he was more interested in being a jerk to me than looking at reality.
There are environmentalists that claim we are all going to drown as the sea level rises 70 meters in twenty years, and there are environmentalists who claim we need to suspend democracy until the climate change is fixed... So, environmentalism and sanity do not necessarily go hand in hand...
|
|
There are environmentalists that claim we are all going to drown as the sea level rises 70 meters in twenty years, and there are environmentalists who claim we need to suspend democracy until the climate change is fixed... So, environmentalism and sanity do not necessarily go hand in hand...
Yep but that is what we are doing right now, talking about changing our whole energy infrastructure in the name of environmentalism. SOME change is needed, but what is the smart change?
Wind and solar both take resources to harvest. storage is an issue. Some environmentalists will call for a halt on global cooling and slowing the windsIrontruth, actually decreasing child mortality without other changes would cause population to skyrocket. The factor which really leads to declining birth rates is when women are educated and allowed to work and support themselves.
On the thread in general. My answer to the whole 'finite resources' thing is, "look up".
Any and all relatively 'immediate' problems (e.g. AGW, Peak Oil, global recession, et cetera) could be solved by switching from fossil fuels to solar and wind power. Which will happen just as soon as governments stop propping up fossil fuels with ludicrously massive subsidies... though it is beginning to look like they won't dare do that until after solar becomes cheaper even than heavily subsidized fossil fuel prices. Which should be some time before 2020.
While human stupidity makes anything possible there is nothing in current trends that would force or even favor a collapse of society. On the contrary, we are heading towards a time of vast unknowable potential.
What resources does it take to harvest wind and solar? Do you mean the initial infrastructure investment? Then sure. Once it's there, though, there's nothing to do but sit back.
Storage is an issue, albeit a relatively minor one. Battery technology is advancing pretty quickly these days.
Your last statement is bonkers, and an example of why no one around here takes you seriously.
Well, in Andrew's defense, we've actually had environmentalists protest against wind power plants in Southern Chile on the grounds of the possibility that they might alter bird migration paths, and another because their vibrations would upset swans.
We even had a group protest against solar plants because they would be destroying the pristine solitude of our deserts in the north.
Not like we're paying much attention to them, though. 15% of our power matrix will be composed by wind/solar plants by 2018, while 50% of what we produce today is already hydroelectric. Then again, we do have lots of rivers and almost zero fosil fuels.
There are environmentalists that claim we are all going to drown as the sea level rises 70 meters in twenty years, and there are environmentalists who claim we need to suspend democracy until the climate change is fixed... So, environmentalism and sanity do not necessarily go hand in hand...
I think suspending democracy would be bad, but i would hardly call it insane. Its pessimistic, but then again when the people running the society make money off of something bad AND people would have to sacrifice something its hard to get people to act against their own best short term interests.
Heh. Biggie (may I call you Biggie?), you seriously can't mean that. Democratic society is far more flexible and adaptable when dealing with a crisis than any autocratic/totalitarian society is. You know Sandy, the hurricane that hit the US east coast a while back? It sure hurt a lot of people. Serious stuff. Now... Society has responded to it, and while things may not be all done yet (and won't for several years), you may want to know what the government response to a similar situation in Burma was a few years back.
They sent out a team of people with chainsaws and other tools, to clear away trees from a road. Good, right? Well, maybe not so impressive after all. With the work team was a reporter who filmed them working. Once he had enough, they all went home again. The film was then used to make a news program that went out to the entire people, broadcast to let the people know that the government was helping them. Entire areas of people died because nobody in power cared enough to restore communications.
Totalitarianism is a monstrous thing. If democracy is ever abandoned in favour of totalitarianism, every chance that exists to adress problems we face goes down the drain completely. So yes... Yes, it is utterly, completely and irrevocably insane.
You should know, Sissyl, that the democratic process has slowed to a halt an attempt to actually deal with the fallout from Sandy.
So New York is still entirely unrepaired, people are starving because food doesn't get where it should, no cars moving, no gas, no electricity, no street lights?
I had no idea it was so bad. Well, I wish I could have seen New York while it still was a living city.
I guess sometimes I just have no idea what I am talking about. Totalitarianism is obviously the way to go.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It was worse than it needed to be on the eastern seaboard. Also, the only reason things were fixed much at all is because of a unilateral move by the executive branch.
I'm not sure how that's unique to democracy and/or excludes totalitarian governments from being responsive. Your assertions are baffling to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heh. Biggie (may I call you Biggie?), you seriously can't mean that. Democratic society is far more flexible and adaptable when dealing with a crisis than any autocratic/totalitarian society is.
You know Sandy, the hurricane that hit the US east coast a while back?
Yes. I remember almost a week without power.
It sure hurt a lot of people. Serious stuff. Now... Society has responded to it, and while things may not be all done yet (and won't for several years), you may want to know what the government response to a similar situation in Burma was a few years back.
By responded to it, you mean refused to allocate money for it? Because that's what they've done.
This is exactly what i'm talking about: Because it doesn't adversely affect the people at the top, the government as a whole won't vote to pay for it. Its the right thing to do, it should have been done already, but it wasn't because of stupid bureaucratic games.
Totalitarianism is a monstrous thing. If democracy is ever abandoned in favour of totalitarianism, every chance that exists to adress problems we face goes down the drain completely. So yes... Yes, it is utterly, completely and irrevocably insane.
Totalitarianism, as bad as it is efficient, gives someone the ability to look for the long term, and can better protect the common interests. The (enormous) problem is to get a despot that actually cares.
Market driven capitalism and democracy (as we have them now) cannot. The ideal business model is to have everyone else spending money on clean air/water/etc while you pollute like crazy to keep down costs. While, collectively, we need to conserve air/water quality, individually it makes more sense to pollute as much as you can get away with (and often its cheaper to pay the fine if you get caught). That disparity between what everyone should be doing and what anyone should be doing is difficult if not impossible to override without some sort of central authority. Our corporations have gotten to the point where they can simply bribe enough components of the central authority to get their desired result.
Y'know, living in RI, I dealt with the after-effects Sandy, too; we were without power here for less than a week; I bought a power inverter so that I could run a couple of lamps and a radio off of my SUV.
If you think that's the end of civilization, you don't know what civilization is.
If you endorse totalitarianism over democracy because totalitarianism is more efficient, you don't know what civilization is either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Y'know, living in RI, I dealt with the after-effects Sandy, too; we were without power here for less than a week; I bought a power inverter so that I could run a couple of lamps and a radio off of my SUV.
If you think that's the end of civilization, you don't know what civilization is.
If you endorse totalitarianism over democracy because totalitarianism is more efficient, you don't know what civilization is either.
Ok, first off i said it was understandable, not that i was endorsing it. It is possible to see the point of something and still disagree with it.
Secondly i never said sandy was the end of civilization: I was pointing at the short sighted gridlock on our system that was the best example someone else could come up with for how well democracy works on a large scale. Sandy's been recovered (so much as it has been) because of more local efforts. Global warming doesn't just require a national solution, it requires an international one... when we can't even get a national solution here.
Lastly, would you like to tell me who in our democracy is thinking 50 or 100 years down the road and making policy to that effect?
Its not the president: they spend 4 years getting elected a second time and 4 years trying to get in a legacy.
Its not congress, they're looking at 2 or 6 year terms: republicans are really only looking at the party primary, not the election.
Its not the corporations, who think its a virtue to milk as much money as possible out of the system for their stockholders NOW
And its not the people, who want stuff now and will angrily vote anyone that commits to a world wide treaty with teeth out of office.
Walk me through the set of circumstances that gets us a serious global warming policy effort written into law.
Irontruth, actually decreasing child mortality without other changes would cause population to skyrocket.
Incorrect.
The factor which really leads to declining birth rates is when women are educated and allowed to work and support themselves.
This is a major factor as well. The part you ignored in the first statement though, is that child mortality is a bell weather of health care infrastructure. There is no country in the world with a good health care infrastructure and high child mortality.
Second, you're ignoring other aspects of what improved child survival means to a family. If families have kids survive at a higher rate, birth rates go down, because they don't need to have so many kids to ensure some of them survive.
When a women spends less time pregnant, she can spend more time on her own education, and the education of her children. Less time pregnant and fewer children means more time can be spent making money. Fewer children means more resources get spent per child.
So, reducing child mortality actually slows population growth. I recommend watching some of Hans Rosling's talks. He's done a lot of work, particularly with statistics to show how myths about developing countries is wrong, so wrong that the concept or category of developing countries probably needs to be forgotten.
A collection of some of his videos.
He's pretty smart and a very entertaining speaker.
|
|
Walk me through the set of circumstances that gets us a serious global warming policy effort written into law.
Prove to me that global warming is man-made...not that it doesn't exist, but that man is actually causing it to happen and that we can stop it from happening without wasting an inordinate amount of resources that could be better spent coming up with solutions to cope with the problem. At that point I will entertain a serious effort to have laws passed. Better yet, convince companies they can make a buck at it and leave the government out entirely.
Did you know there is a difference between CO2 from a man-made and natural sources?
So, when a scientist looks in the atmosphere to see where CO2 is having the highest greenhouse effect, they can look at what kind of CO2 it is. They've found that man-made CO2 is having a high degree of impact on the climate, a ratio much higher than natural sources of CO2.
Different carbon isotopes from burning carbon-based fuels than those building naturally released CO2?
Walk me through the set of circumstances that gets us a serious global warming policy effort written into law.
If I can only name one thing? Just education; literacy and critical thinking.
A good number of posts ago, I asked for a clarification of what "our current model of civilization" exactly means, and I still haven't been offered one. I certainly don't mean to single you out, but if we can't establish some common terms, the conversation is rather moot, y'know?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Prove to me that global warming is man-made...not that it doesn't exist, but that man is actually causing it to happen and that we can stop it from happening without wasting an inordinate amount of resources that could be better spent coming up with solutions to cope with the problem. At that point I will entertain a serious effort to have laws passed.
Ok, thats a bit of a curve ball in the conversation, but...
Ice cores from Antarctica clearly demonstrate that its CO2 levels, more than anything else, that determine temperature.
We are throwing a massive amount of CO2 into the atmosphere.
We have eliminated a lot of the vegetation that used to compensate for additional CO2.
We know that gasses around a planet help retain heat.
We know that the recent up-spike in temperature that coincides with the industrial revolution is more abrupt than almost all if not all of the previous ones.
So what we have is a heavy degree of correlation combined with a plausible method of causation, that's being born out by study after study.
When the ONLY counter argument to that is in the employ of the people responsible for releasing the CO2, an antiscientific cultural push, or a fox newsesque mantra of "climate gate! climate gate! those scientists used scary words and hurt our feelings in their private emails!" then I tend to go off the evidence that I have.
Better yet, convince companies they can make a buck at it and leave the government out entirely.
No.
I do not see anything in the constitution requiring a free market solution. I see nothing in reality that says that a free market solution MUST be the best one.
In case you missed it, my entire rant was WHY a free market solution wasn't going to work: the benefit is to everyone and you weren't going to make money off of it. There is no way to put a price tag on that or make money off of it.
This faith in the free market is entirely misplaced and overlooks centuries of scientific and environmental advancement through state patronage. The discovery of the Americas, the moon landings, the hubble telescope, computers, the internet, the national parks system, species conservation programs, clean air and water acts... state funding played a huge role in all of them.
If I can only name one thing? Just education; literacy and critical thinking.
That doesn't work. People are too easy to fool with rhetorical argument and have been since at least the beginning of recorded history. I don't see you changing that.
A good number of posts ago, I asked for a clarification of what "our current model of civilization" exactly means, and I still haven't been offered one. I certainly don't mean to single you out, but if we can't establish some common terms, the conversation is rather moot, y'know?
Our current model of civilization is industrialized nation states, largely in control of powerful, profit driven, corporations, vying with each other for control of resources.
Very well then. You say democracy is unable to deal with it, as is the free market. I tell you then to get cracking on making up a better political system and economic system, because totalitarianism and a planned economy certainly is not going to do it if democracy and a free market can't. You think corruption, cronyism and waste are found only in democratic countries?
Poor, poor child who never had to live with a totalitarian system, and who never took the time to learn what those macabre political episodes lead to.
I get it, you are not happy with the system you live in now. Are you conceited enough to think that any alternative must be better? Is it a necessity to dig in the toxic waste section of the garbage heap of history to find a political system for all our children to live in?
The real uncomfortable truth in this is that if democracy can't, or won't, do what is necessary, then neither will any other system. Sure, you can probably bribe various regimes to sign a treaty... But they will certainly never follow it or let anyone check on them or punish them for not following it. You say it is an enormous problem to choose who gets on top in a totalitarian system... Yeah. You don't get to choose. That is a democratic idea. Whoever you put on top of the garbage heap when the transition is made, after a vicious bout of political fighting, the most vile and disgusting person will take the reins and milk the system for all he can.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Different carbon isotopes from burning carbon-based fuels than those building naturally released CO2?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Very well then. You say democracy is unable to deal with it, as is the free market. I tell you then to get cracking on making up a better political system and economic system, because totalitarianism and a planned economy certainly is not going to do it if democracy and a free market can't. You think corruption, cronyism and waste are found only in democratic countries?
I agree. It is only a democratically planned economy that can tackle the environmental degradation of the planet.
Honestly, though, I think all you pinkskins are f@*$ed and we goblins are looking forward to playing in the ashes of your civilization.
I personally never bought into the mankind is causing global warming scientific theory. Computer models are not scientific observations or measurements.
Climate change doomsday is currently scheduled for 2060. It was quietly updated to there from 2050 in summer 2011. Twenty years ago, continued pollution would cause the atmosphere to rip from the Earth. In fifty years. Considering this, who cares about what will happen in 2060, if we are already doomed come 2040 when the atmosphere is torn away? Not to mention, the IPCC has clearly declared that if not their entire policy was implemented in 2012, there was no longer anything to do about climate change doom. So... why worry anymore if the fight is over?
Climate change doomsday is currently scheduled for 2060. It was quietly updated to there from 2050 in summer 2011. Twenty years ago, continued pollution would cause the atmosphere to rip from the Earth. In fifty years. Considering this, who cares about what will happen in 2060, if we are already doomed come 2040 when the atmosphere is torn away? Not to mention, the IPCC has clearly declared that if not their entire policy was implemented in 2012, there was no longer anything to do about climate change doom. So... why worry anymore if the fight is over?
We're all going to die, regardless of climate change, so why bother doing anything by that standard? Your point is meaningless.
