Conspiracy theories surrounding human influenced climate change, what's up with that?


Off-Topic Discussions

3,551 to 3,563 of 3,563 << first < prev | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Quark Blast wrote:
By products of the oil-for-transportation business are just that, by products. Make them the primary product and all the attendant infrastructure costs will fall on the by products, as well as the loss in economies of scale, thus making them cost a ####-ton more than they do now.

Even if that were true... it still doesn't explain why you objected to my statement that, "A day is coming when the balance of 'powerful interests' is going to flip... and all the benefits currently keeping fossil fuels afloat will instead be deployed to drown them."

Were you just making a random point unrelated to the text you quoted, or do you somehow think that these supposed higher costs will allow the 'petroleum byproducts industry' to wield the same kind of economic and political power that the oil industry does currently?

Quark Blast wrote:
This near future you imagine might give us virtually free transportation of our goods to market via EVs but increases in the costs of pesticides, fertilizers and road tar will still give you a $7.50 apple.

A single apple will cost $7.50? How can you possibly believe that?

They literally grow on trees!

Quark Blast wrote:
I would gloat now but what's the point?

Indeed, what would be the point in gloating about 'being right' on basic and obvious facts that were never in dispute?


CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
By products of the oil-for-transportation business are just that, by products. Make them the primary product and all the attendant infrastructure costs will fall on the by products, as well as the loss in economies of scale, thus making them cost a ####-ton more than they do now.

Even if that were true... it still doesn't explain why you objected to my statement that, "A day is coming when the balance of 'powerful interests' is going to flip... and all the benefits currently keeping fossil fuels afloat will instead be deployed to drown them."

Were you just making a random point unrelated to the text you quoted, or do you somehow think that these supposed higher costs will allow the 'petroleum byproducts industry' to wield the same kind of economic and political power that the oil industry does currently?

And where do they get that influence money?

CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
This near future you imagine might give us virtually free transportation of our goods to market via EVs but increases in the costs of pesticides, fertilizers and road tar will still give you a $7.50 apple.

A single apple will cost $7.50? How can you possibly believe that?

They literally grow on trees!

For one thing, they already regularly cost around $1.00 in the USA and up to twice that, without being purchased in hoity-toity boutique markets, in many wealthy countries.

You don't grow apples for 7-to-9 billion people without pesticides/fungicides or fertilizer and all those are petroleum industry by products.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
I would gloat now but what's the point?
Indeed, what would be the point in gloating about 'being right' on basic and obvious facts that were never in dispute?

At this point (see my immediately prior post) I've got over 11k reputable scientists taking my side in this fight. The world gets to go vegetarian/vegan whether it wants to or not. Long distance vacations are going to be out of reach for even "middle class" careers. Etc. At least until we get over the hump adjusting to AGW and assuming there are no significant tipping elements/points crossed between now and then.

If the "alarmist" scientists are right, and the data is pointing that direction, then, given the usual human tribal reactions to negative change, we who live past 2050 are apt to witness quite the #### show.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Quark Blast wrote:
And where do they get that influence money?

Ok. Get a dictionary and look up these words: "cost" and "profit". Turns out... they aren't the same thing.

Quark Blast wrote:
For one thing, they already regularly cost around $1.00 in the USA and up to twice that, without being purchased in hoity-toity boutique markets, in many wealthy countries.

One dollar for a POUND of apples would be kinda cheap. One dollar for a single apple is ridiculously overpriced. An apple for $7.50 is nearly 20 times the going rate.

Quark Blast wrote:
You don't grow apples for 7-to-9 billion people without pesticides/fungicides or fertilizer and all those are petroleum industry by products.

Plant an apple tree in your back yard (assuming an area where they can grow) and do absolutely nothing to maintain it... you'll still likely get in the neighborhood of 100 apples a year. That's more than most people eat. The only reason a lot of people don't do this any more is that apples are so cheap that they don't bother. If apples ever became anywhere near as expensive as you imagine, backyard apple trees would make a big comeback... and the price would NOT reach $7.50 per apple. That's just absurd.

Quark Blast wrote:
At this point (see my immediately prior post) I've got over 11k reputable scientists taking my side in this fight. The world gets to go vegetarian/vegan whether it wants to or not. Long distance vacations are going to be out of reach for even "middle class" careers.

Nothing in the text you quoted supports those claims... or indeed, even mentions vegetarian/vegan diet or vacation travel.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
For one thing, they already regularly cost around $1.00 in the USA and up to twice that, without being purchased in hoity-toity boutique markets, in many wealthy countries.
One dollar for a POUND of apples would be kinda cheap. One dollar for a single apple is ridiculously overpriced. An apple for $7.50 is nearly 20 times the going rate.

"A pound of apples". I guess two apples warrants the use of plural, because it's nothing to find apples weighing 2/3 of a pound or more.

It's also nothing for apples to cost $3/pound. And since a typical smaller apple is 1/3 of pound, that'll set you back $1. At least.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
You don't grow apples for 7-to-9 billion people without pesticides/fungicides or fertilizer and all those are petroleum industry by products.
Plant an apple tree in your back yard (assuming an area where they can grow) and do absolutely nothing to maintain it... you'll still likely get in the neighborhood of 100 apples a year. That's more than most people eat. The only reason a lot of people don't do this any more is that apples are so cheap that they don't bother. If apples ever became anywhere near as expensive as you imagine, backyard apple trees would make a big comeback... and the price would NOT reach $7.50 per apple. That's just absurd.

Most people don't have a yard.

Most people who have yards don't have them in climates that can grow apples.

Laws and regulations require 'backyard apple growers' to use pesticides/fungicides - the very chemicals set to dramatically increase in price with the demise of oil-for-transportation.

Good grief your arguments have gotten lame.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
At this point (see my immediately prior post) I've got over 11k reputable scientists taking my side in this fight. The world gets to go vegetarian/vegan whether it wants to or not. Long distance vacations are going to be out of reach for even "middle class" careers.
Nothing in the text you quoted supports those claims... or indeed, even mentions vegetarian/vegan diet or vacation travel.

Since you can't read a three page document I helpfully linked previously...

11k Scientists wrote:

To secure a sustainable future, we must change how we live, in ways that improve the vital signs summarized by our graphs.... We suggest six critical and interrelated steps (in no particular order) that governments, businesses, and the rest of humanity can take to lessen the worst effects of climate change. These are important steps but are not the only actions needed or possible (Pachauri et al. 2014, IPCC 2018, 2019)....

Food

Eating mostly plant-based foods while reducing the global consumption of animal products (figure 1c–d), especially ruminant livestock (Ripple et al. 2014), can improve human health and significantly lower GHG emissions (including methane in the “Short-lived pollutants” step). Moreover, this will free up croplands for growing much-needed human plant food instead of livestock feed, while releasing some grazing land to support natural climate solutions (see “Nature” section).

Sounds like we're going veg to me.

:D


Quark Blast wrote:


Laws and regulations require 'backyard apple growers' to use pesticides/fungicides - the very chemicals set to dramatically increase in price with the demise of oil-for-transportation.

Wait. I've got an apple tree in my backyard. Now you tell me I'm required to use pesticides/fungicides on it? I'm breaking the law by mostly ignoring my tree, except to occasionally pick apples from it?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Quark Blast wrote:
Most people who have yards don't have them in climates that can grow apples.

Nonsense.

Quark Blast wrote:
Laws and regulations require 'backyard apple growers' to use pesticides/fungicides

For most of the planet this is completely untrue.

In a few areas that have large apple industries, or just obnoxiously intrusive lawmakers, regulations on backyard trees do exist. They are generally imposed on all apple/fruit growers to prevent diseases and pests from spreading. However, I doubt you'd be able to find any that don't include non-pesticide options.

In any case, you continue to have a shockingly bad grasp of economics. If something becomes ludicrously expensive that does not mean that everything which uses that item then also becomes more expensive. Rather... people seek out and switch over to alternatives. Like... when Norway imposed charges to make ICE vehicles just a little more expensive everyone switched to buying EVs instead.

Petroleum based pesticides inexplicably cost vastly more when the available supply of petroleum increases? Ok, that makes no sense, but if it happened... people would use OTHER pesticides. Or non pesticide options. The only reason these pesticides are so prevalent currently is that they are cheap.

Quark Blast wrote:
Sounds like we're going veg to me.

So your reading comprehension is even worse than I thought... 'cuz the text you quoted says "reducing ... consumption of animal products". Reducing is not eliminating.


thejeff wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Laws and regulations require 'backyard apple growers' to use pesticides/fungicides - the very chemicals set to dramatically increase in price with the demise of oil-for-transportation.
Wait. I've got an apple tree in my backyard. Now you tell me I'm required to use pesticides/fungicides on it? I'm breaking the law by mostly ignoring my tree, except to occasionally pick apples from it?

If you live in the EU, the USA, or Canada, then yes. Call your local land grant university extension service in the USA to get the particulars.


CBDunkerson wrote:
So your reading comprehension is even worse than I thought... 'cuz the text you quoted says "reducing ... consumption of animal products". Reducing is not eliminating.

The average American eats meat (excluding fish) at the rate of about three portions a day or about 21 times per week. Reading the literature on what global humanity needs to be eating to meet the +1.5 target and it's about 1 portion per week. Yes, 1 portion - a steak the size of a deck of cards - per week.

Now maybe you're fine with being all pedantic and "right" but I think it's closer to the truth to tell people they're going to have to go veg if they're serious about doing their part to mitigate AGW.

.

And as far as people using "other pesticides", well, that would be the organic option and the globe could support about 1 billion humans with organic production methods (barring open conflict and other types of warfare).


And the $7.50 apple is just an example (and $7.50 is not an outrageous price increase over the current value btw), with many like things being part of each humans' "sacrifice for the greater good".

Another example:

You like that two-day or next-day delivery for your online purchases?

Well, that involves air transport (much like tourism) and if you want to do your part you need to be checking the "4-to-6 weeks delivery" option.
Naturally that check box isn't really an option, nor will it ever be without a ####### ####-load of blow-back. Yep, things are gonna suck!

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Quark Blast wrote:

You like that two-day or next-day delivery for your online purchases?

Well, that involves air transport (much like tourism) and if you want to do your part you need to be checking the "4-to-6 weeks delivery" option.

Air travel accounts for less than 3% of total emissions. It is a minor factor which climate deniers have blown completely out of proportion to distract from what we really need to do to solve the issue.

In any case, electric (and self driving) trucks are poised to take on an ever increasing portion of goods delivery. Amazon is working towards same day delivery, which can only be accomplished by having stocked warehouses in trucking range of each destination point. Thus, the tiny portion of CO2 emissions currently coming from air transport of goods is likely to shrink even further.

You keep going back to the idea of 'each human needing to sacrifice'... but that is completely wrong. If we all gave up air travel and became vegetarians the impact on global warming would be insignificant. Individual actions are not the problem. The fossil fuel basis of electricity and ground transportation is the problem. The only way we stop the vast majority of global warming is by stopping the use of fossil fuels for those two things... which, fortunately we can do just by switching over to renewable energy and electric vehicles. Which cost less. So no sacrifice required.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:

You like that two-day or next-day delivery for your online purchases?

Well, that involves air transport (much like tourism) and if you want to do your part you need to be checking the "4-to-6 weeks delivery" option.

Air travel accounts for less than 3% of total emissions. It is a minor factor which climate deniers have blown completely out of proportion to distract from what we really need to do to solve the issue.

In any case, electric (and self driving) trucks are poised to take on an ever increasing portion of goods delivery. Amazon is working towards same day delivery, which can only be accomplished by having stocked warehouses in trucking range of each destination point. Thus, the tiny portion of CO2 emissions currently coming from air transport of goods is likely to shrink even further.

How do you think they'll keep those JIT warehouses stocked? EV drones?

CBDunkerson wrote:
You keep going back to the idea of 'each human needing to sacrifice'... but that is completely wrong. If we all gave up air travel and became vegetarians the impact on global warming would be insignificant. Individual actions are not the problem. The fossil fuel basis of electricity and ground transportation is the problem. The only way we stop the vast majority of global warming is by stopping the use of fossil fuels for those two things... which, fortunately we can do just by switching over to renewable energy and electric vehicles. Which cost less. So no sacrifice required.

Yes, I keep going back to that because 11,258 subject matter experts bring up the issues constantly, each in their own sub-specialty.

If we'd started down the Solar Highway 20 years ago we'd be having an easy time of it now. As it is, not only are we late getting started but we have to ramp up so fast that it is and will be both intermittent and inefficient along all fronts. The pattern is already set and won't change appreciably for another few decades.


Climate change: 'Bleak' outlook as carbon emissions gap grows

BBC wrote:

Countries will have to increase their carbon-cutting ambitions five fold if the world is to avoid warming by more than 1.5C, the UN says.

The annual emissions gap report shows that even if all current promises are met, the world will warm by more than double that amount by 2100.

That seems pretty clear to me and a definite ramping up of the "DOOM!" rhetoric over the "C'mon guys, we can do better" pablum of the previous decade.

.

Then they say this:

BBC wrote:

The UN assessment is fairly blunt. "The summary findings are bleak," it says. "Countries collectively failed to stop the growth in global greenhouse gas emissions, meaning that deeper and faster cuts are now required."

The report says that emissions have gone up by 1.5% per year in the last decade. In 2018, the total reached 55 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent. This is putting the Earth on course to experience a temperature rise of 3.2C by the end of this century.

Just last year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned that allowing temperatures to rise more than 1.5 degrees this century would have hugely damaging effects for human, plant and animal life across the planet.

.

And here's the good news:

BBC wrote:

Three countries - India, Russia and Turkey - are all on track to over-achieve their plans by 15% but the authors of the report say this is because the targets they set themselves were too low in the first place .

For three others - Argentina, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia - the researchers are uncertain as to whether they are meeting their targets or not.

Yeah, being totally uncertain about critical metrics and setting grossly insufficient targets for 34% of humanity is a hopeful sign. </sarcasm>

Did I say a +2.5°C year 2100? I hold the right to adjust that number in a year or two.

.

BBC wrote:
To get a sense of the massive scale of change that is needed, the study says the world will have to spend up to $3.8 trillion per year, every year between 2020 and 2050 to achieve the 1.5C target.

That's 5% of global GDP, a totally doable number if everything works out like it's planned. Of course the last 20 years have worked out almost nothing like planned, hence the ramp up in DOOM! rhetoric to get us on the plan ( notice I didn't say, "get us back on plan" as we were never on a plan ).

Given that projects of even 1/10th this size end up being at least double the initial budget, we're looking at something like spending 10% to 20% of global GDP for a decade straight.

So I'm hoping for a global economic depression. Not because I want one but because it seems more likely than spending on this scale going as planned.

I'm only optimistic about pragmatic solutions.
:D

.

In other news:
I paid $1.68 for a single apple today. Not a small one but not a particularly large one and it was at a discounted price.


Climate taxes on agriculture could lead to more food insecurity than climate change itself

”Phys.Org” wrote:

New IIASA-led research has found that a single climate mitigation scheme applied to all sectors, such as a global carbon tax, could have a serious impact on agriculture and result in far more widespread hunger and food insecurity than the direct impacts of climate change…

By 2050, the models suggest that climate change could be responsible for putting an extra 24 million people at risk of hunger on average, with some models suggesting up to 50 million extra could be at risk. However, if agriculture is included in very stringent climate mitigation schemes, such as a global carbon tax or a comprehensive emission trading system applying the same rules to all sectors of the economy, the increase in food prices would be such that 78 million more people would be at risk of hunger, with some models finding that up to 170 million more would be at risk.

This is obviously an argument for intelligent carbon taxing. What are the odds something global will be implemented intelligently?

:D
.

Climate impacts 'to cost world $7.9 trillion' by 2050

”Phys.Org” wrote:

The Economist Intelligence Unit's (EIU) Climate Change Resilience Index measured the preparedness of the world's 82 largest economies and found that based on current trends the fallout of warming temperatures would shave off three percent of global GDP by 2050.

Its analysis, which assesses each country's direct exposure to loss as climate change brings more frequent extreme weather events, found Africa was most at-risk, with 4.7 percent of its GDP in the balance.

How much real GDP loss for the wealthy parts of the world? Around 1.5%

So it might be cheaper for wealthy nations to mitigate instead of cut carbon, at least through 2050.

Developed nations ought to give up about 1.5% of their GDP these next 30 years to help the remainder of humanity. That’s about $1,000/year for each of us, including children and retired folks and wards of the state. Totally doable. Extremely unlikely.

.

Mercedes-Benz owner Daimler to cut 10,000 jobs worldwide

”BBC” wrote:

The move comes days after rival Audi said it would cut 9,500 of its 61,000 jobs in Germany for similar reasons.

Daimler said the car industry was going through "the biggest transformation in its history".
"The development towards CO2-neutral mobility requires large investments, which is why Daimler announced in the middle of November that it would launch a programme to increase competitiveness, innovation and investment strength," the firm said.
"Part of this programme is to reduce staff costs by around €1.4bn by the end of 2022 and, among other things, to reduce the number of management positions worldwide by 10%." …
{and elsewhere on the Net} Ford said in June that it would cut 12,000 jobs in Europe and Nissan said in July that it would cut 12,500 jobs worldwide citing similar cost concerns.

And these jobs won’t be coming back either. EVs have far fewer parts and the factories are more automated. So this is costly now and will continue to be so for another three decades at least.

This reminds me of all the data centers and distribution centers the tech companies have. They get into small town light industrial districts sans taxes for all the jobs they promise to create and then, because of automation and “ to increase competitiveness, innovation and investment strength”, never create those jobs and still reap tax breaks. But hey, they’re tech companies, they’re woke, they “do no evil”, right? Right?

:D

3,551 to 3,563 of 3,563 << first < prev | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Conspiracy theories surrounding human influenced climate change, what's up with that? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.