Y'know what? I started with like 5 paragraphs of snark there, but I'm gonna stow all that. Quarktastic Adventure, you've made some excellent points on climate change, combating it and the challenges that the US fed faces in doing so. Your other topics are of no use here. You call on us to stop hijacking the conversation but YOU asked for examples of government initiatives to prove that the fed could do something on climate change; YOU argued with those examples; YOU argued deeper into healthcare and then YOU asked about how Europe is dealing with the pandemic.
How does any of that relate to how well the US can implement climate change initiatives? Only you know Blastatron.
Iron Giant, in the article you linked it mentions that China needs to get on board with their own efforts. I thought they already WERE trying to clean up their air so I did a quick Google search. Turns out their pollution clean up may have actually made things warmer.
So, anyone got any GOOD news from China? They're the second largest contributor in the world, they aren't interested in working with other accords on climate change, and now their "cure" is making the problem worse. Feels like if we can get the new administration to action on their own campaign policies, the next step would be China.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: So, anyone got any GOOD news from China? They're the second largest contributor in the world, they aren't interested in working with other accords on climate change, and now their "cure" is making the problem worse. Feels like if we can get the new administration to action on their own campaign policies, the next step would be China. Good news? No, not really.
The government lies as a matter of course. And has for 70+ years at this point so it seems they're unlikely to change.
China is still building coal power plants....
Our electronics are cheaper because of Chinese slave labor practices?
Yeah, I got nothing. Sorry.
Irontruth wrote: Since you've presented no data that disagrees with mine, you agree that the government has done a better job managing the opioid crisis than the private sector. I agree that your data says no such thing. Because that's an objective and demonstrable truth.
Quark Blast wrote: Irontruth wrote: Since you've presented no data that disagrees with mine, you agree that the government has done a better job managing the opioid crisis than the private sector. I agree that your data says no such thing. Because that's an objective and demonstrable truth. No, you haven't demonstrated that at all. That would require you to use data.
Irontruth wrote: I guess all you have is childish retorts. Hold that up to a mirror!
:D
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Quark Blast wrote: My data doesn't show any different so in deference to Mark Hoover's plea I'll withhold it. Oh you're withholding your data in deference to someone else all of a sudden. What was holding you back before?
More to the point, his data (really the Governments data) shows that the VA is more effectively combating the opioid crisis than the Private Sector, which is the exact opposite of the claim you made. The difference being he linked out to two sources and you've provided none.
Quark Blast wrote: I agree that your data says no such thing. Because that's an objective and demonstrable truth. A demonstrable truth... that you have failed to demonstrate by not providing any data. See how that works?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
pauljathome wrote:
Whichever metric you want to use the US is doing worse
You have more than one metric system? No wonder the US hasn't adopted them.
Proportionally it looks like the VA has no less than 1.7 opioid OD per 1.0 general population OD.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
BigNorseWolf wrote: pauljathome wrote:
Whichever metric you want to use the US is doing worse
You have more than one metric system? No wonder the US hasn't adopted them. *ba dum TSSSS*
Quark Blast wrote: My point is:
In spite of the massive scientific effort by Germany they don't stand out from the rest now do they?
Germany has 0,14 deaths per 1000 people.
UK has 0,7.
France has 0,6.
US (whole) has 0,7.
Texas has 0,66.
Alabama has 0,63.
New York (state) has 1,7.
Not to be a flag-hugging, "lederhosen"-wearing german nationalist, but I think we DO stand out from the rest.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: So, anyone got any GOOD news from China? They're the second largest contributor in the world, they aren't interested in working with other accords on climate change, and now their "cure" is making the problem worse. Feels like if we can get the new administration to action on their own campaign policies, the next step would be China. Good news ... it depends. China says it views climate change as a problem, and plans to be carbon neutral by 2060. Also, they have signed the paris accords, and their renewable energy sector is growing faster than its fossil fuel sector. If you look at the climate action tracker, they are better than for example the USA or Russia or Brazil.
But that's where we come to the "it depends"-part. They are better, but as the CAT shows, their efforts are still not good enough.
China has a gigantic rising economy, so they naturally need to expand their energy sector faster than other economies. And unlike Europe and the US, China is not a democracy, which I think will bring another problem: They are MUCH more dependent upon a booming economy. To put it in simplistic tones, Chinas post-1990-government is in power because they struck a deal with the majority population that they would not push for reforms, IF the party delivers economic well-being. That, combined with notorious local corruption, is a problem.
So ... yeah. There not the worst nation, but they are not exactly on the best track. As everywhere, a lot of work still to do.
Turkey .13/1000
India .1
Greece .08
Does that bunch up your lederhosen?
:D
"China says..."
Indeed.
India says too.
I'll wait until 2030 to do a preliminary observation of action over talk.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark Blast wrote: Proportionally it looks like the VA has no less than 1.7 opioid OD per 1.0 general population OD. I sound like a broken clock, but where do you get those numbers?
So far, comparable numbers are hard to come by. My google-fu has only made me find those two articles with somewhat comparable numbers:
This article showing opioid abuse rates of 12% in the age group 18-25 in 2013.
This article estimates 4% of active-duty service members misuse perscription drugs in 2014.
Additionally, this article states that "The increases in opioid overdose deaths among veterans parallel those seen in the general population".
None of those articles, mind you, are definitive proof that the military has no bigger drug problem than the general US population. But they seem to suggest that if the problem is bigger, it isn't terribly bigger.
Quark Blast wrote: Turkey .13/1000
India .1
Greece .08
Does that bunch up your lederhosen?
:D
Yes, they have better numbers than germany. Your argument is ... what exactly?
Your point was that all countries are "basically the same" when it comes to corona, because "germany adopted a different approach compared to the US, and look were they are now." To which my answer is that germany has better numbers than the US, proving that we did something different. What that "something" is (better healthcare, better politics, better geography/population density, more/less testing) is debatable. But your point about some other countries doing EVEN BETTER proves nothing.
In fact, it proves the opposite of your greater point, since Turkey and Greece have universal government healthcare, and India has a universal healthcare model with expanding public options.
Quark Blast wrote:
"China says..."
Indeed.
India says too.
I'll wait until 2030 to do a preliminary observation of action over talk.
Yes, China says things. Yes, China has lied in the past. But, as mentioned, they have also done things. To quote myself, "their renewable energy sector is growing faster than its fossil fuel sector."
I mean, what is your alternative? Not do anything, because maybe China and India want to shoot themselves in the foot? That logic brings us nowhere, because than no one will start anything for fear that they are the only one. In that scenario, why SHOULD China do anything, when the US doesn't even manage to stay in the paris agreement.
Devon Northwood wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Proportionally it looks like the VA has no less than 1.7 opioid OD per 1.0 general population OD. I sound like a broken clock, but where do you get those numbers?
So far, comparable numbers are hard to come by. My google-fu has only made me find those two articles with somewhat comparable numbers:
This article showing opioid abuse rates of 12% in the age group 18-25 in 2013.
This article estimates 4% of active-duty service members misuse perscription drugs in 2014.
Additionally, this article states that "The increases in opioid overdose deaths among veterans parallel those seen in the general population".
None of those articles, mind you, are definitive proof that the military has no bigger drug problem than the general US population. But they seem to suggest that if the problem is bigger, it isn't terribly bigger. I'm actually okay with the assumption that opioid use amongst veterans is proportionally higher than the all of the general population. But that means we're including children, and college educated people.
I bet if we compared just rural West Virginia against veterans though that we'll see a different story.
How we construct our patient pools matters, and so you're right... we need to see actual data on the issue, not just claims to data.
It's more accurate to say, "the renewable energy sector is growing so fast from global market forces that even in China it's outpacing fossil fuels."
As for which approach is best to control the Coronavirus. My point is it isn't obvious that the German model is best. Certainly sending known COVID-19 sick old people from hospitals to 'old folks homes' was an extremely bad and non-scientific action by the NY government. But other than gross examples such as that, the approach to take is quite up to debate.
E.g. Hawaii lets tourists in now. Yeah they have restrictions but there will be (NOT maybe - will be) additional infections from that. And therefore additional deaths. Human life apparently has a price and can be measured in tourist dollars.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Devon Northwood wrote: I sound like a broken clock, but where do you get those numbers? The sitting US President will both release his taxes and accept the election results before Quark cites a source.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Might I suggest you guys introduce a rule for your responses:
If no source cited (and not talking about another post that doesn't fall afoul of this rule): Respond with "No sources given, therefore unverifiable. Unfortunately, we must disregard this, given mountains of evidence against it, and none presented for it." and then continue a productive conversation with each other?
Seriously, I find debate fascinating. But this stopped being debate a while ago. It takes someone on both sides to be in good faith for a full debate.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: Iron Giant, in the article you linked it mentions that China needs to get on board with their own efforts. I thought they already WERE trying to clean up their air so I did a quick Google search. Turns out their pollution clean up may have actually made things warmer.
So, anyone got any GOOD news from China? They're the second largest contributor in the world, they aren't interested in working with other accords on climate change, and now their "cure" is making the problem worse.
You need to differentiate between short term and long term warming.
Yes, China reducing the amount of particulate air pollution they are releasing allows more sunlight to reach the surface of the Earth and thus causes warming... in the short term. Within a few years the amount of particulate pollution in the air settles at whatever (lower) new level can be sustained by ongoing emissions and the warming from that effect stops. The same thing happened a few decades ago when the US passed the Clean Air Act.
Greenhouse gas warming on the other hand is long term and cumulative... the longer you continue emitting GHGs the greater the warming and the longer it will last. Thus, China's efforts to build renewable energy mean that they are making massive strides towards reducing warming. If they had built coal plants instead of all that wind and solar power the world would be in very bad trouble.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The International Energy Agency has released its 2020 Renewable Energy report
Some key findings;
Renewables will account for about 90% of new electricity generation world wide in 2020 and the IEA is projecting that they will account for about 95% of net capacity increase through 2025. Basically, development of new fossil fuel power plants has all but ceased.
They are projecting that renewables will now surpass coal and natural gas to become the largest global source of power generation within the next four years... accounting for a third of all generation by 2025. Solar will account for 60% of that growth and wind 30%.
Thru 2025; "In the European Union and the United Kingdom, the increase in renewables-based generation is expected to be more than nine times the rise in electricity demand, and close to three times the increase in US demand." So, in addition to covering most new demand they are also projecting that renewables will replace vast amounts of existing fossil fuel power.
While the pandemic has reduced global energy demand by about 5% this year, demand for renewable energy actually grew about 1%. In short, renewables took a bigger slice of a smaller market... a double hit against fossil fuels.
These findings confirm (again) that the pandemic isn't going to have much impact on global warming or the rate of renewable power development. Indeed, the report indicates that while covid-19 is not a major factor, government policy decisions in the next few years could increase renewable growth significantly beyond the values projected.
Its actually a treat to get dunked on by CBDunkerson. Thanks for pointing out that short term warming isn't long term warming and the difference between the two.
So China needs to maintain a booming economy. The article linked above shows that greater market share is being eaten up by renewables, even in a year where global energy demand dropped. I can't imagine that a regime requiring economic positivity would backslide into fossil fuels then, unless somehow said fuels become more economically incentivized.
This article from Forbes over the summer further illustrates the point that renewable energy sources and storage has gotten so much cheaper, so much faster than anticipated, that its more economically viable for China to move deeper into renewables than to stick to "business as usual" (from the article).
From what it looks like though, the biggest cost isn't going to be in the technologies themselves but in the distribution infrastructure. Still this gives hope to the idea that China hits its goals by 2030.
More positive signs to add to what Irontruth was trying to beat into my head the other day :)
If anything, a big shift like this is easier for china. Chinas government can tell the energy sector "we're moving to renewables and hydro" then clear out the town around the dam, the solar panels, and the wind turbines.
In the US energy corporations tell the government "we're staying with oil" and drop cash into making that happen. Then get local governments to pass ordinances against windmills.
BigNorseWolf wrote: If anything, a big shift like this is easier for china. Chinas government can tell the energy sector "we're moving to renewables and hydro" then clear out the town around the dam, the solar panels, and the wind turbines.
In the US energy corporations tell the government "we're staying with oil" and drop cash into making that happen. Then get local governments to pass ordinances against windmills.
Maybe. There's plenty of corruption in China too though. If the energy sector is state owned and the politicians in charge profit from it, that's even more direct than buying politicians with campaign contributions.
BigNorseWolf wrote: If anything, a big shift like this is easier for china. Chinas government can tell the energy sector "we're moving to renewables and hydro" then clear out the town around the dam, the solar panels, and the wind turbines.
In the US energy corporations tell the government "we're staying with oil" and drop cash into making that happen. Then get local governments to pass ordinances against windmills.
Well, I think you have a rather simplistic view of regimes like China.
First of all, dictatorial governments are inherently more conservative in their approach towards change. Not in a "left-right" way, but when you are in power by force, you generally don't try to rock the boat by enacting social reforms or economic restructuring. If you can go on "as usual", you do that. Now, Chinas government has enacted more reforms than other regimes in the past (that's why they are still in power after 70 years). But when in doubt, a dictatorial regime will try to leave the status quo intact for as long as possible.
Second of all, dictatorships do have people in power that are not directly part of the ruling class. Corruption is alive and well in China, and there are rich coal-giants influencing politics just like in the US. They sometimes do it in other ways, but the limiting of free speech and free press makes it generally easier to bribe and influence politics, because the public has a harder time finding out about specific cases of corrupt behaviour.
So yes, China has it easier than western democracies when fighting climate change because if they want a new solar plant, they can just force everyone to build one. But they also have their own challenges, which means that I would argue that western democracies will be better at fighting CC than regimes like China.
Devon Northwood wrote: .
Well, I think you have a rather simplistic view of regimes like China.
First of all, governments are inherently more conservative in their approach towards change
I don't think thats a valid criticism of my view, and its especially ironic to complain that my view is simplistic and then to argue that china must be conservative in energy just because it's a dictatorship.
Quote: They sometimes do it in other ways, but the limiting of free speech and free press makes it generally easier to bribe and influence politics I don't think you can get any easier than the US's ability to legally write a check as long as the contract with the words quid pro quo isn't written on the back. Europe may be different.
Third, the ability to protest slows down large projects. NIMBY not in my backyard is an ENORMOUS impediment to any large government programs. I can't see the modern US building anything the size of the three gorges dam.
thejeff wrote: Maybe. There's plenty of corruption in China too though. If the energy sector is state owned and the politicians in charge profit from it, that's even more direct than buying politicians with campaign contributions. Corrupt or not corrupt is irrelevant. Oil is easy to monopolize: getting to it is a big under taking and there's only so many profitable oil deposits.
Solar can make money. It just doesn't make money for any one/five/ten particular corporations. It makes money for 100 of them. So it's much harder for any one corporation to make enough money to compete with oil... unless you ARE all 1,000 solar corporations or the government is the only solar corporation.
The wests individualism has a lot of advantages. But so does centralized government control.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Corrupt or not, the only point I was trying to illustrate with the Forbes article is that China has already started to lumber down the path of increasing solar and wind. Supposedly they've gone far enough that it's more profitable for them to continue that way rather than backpedal to maintaining or increasing fossil fuels.
So even if government officials are receiving income or kickbacks from fossil fuel industries bound to said government, propping up those industries would be short term gains. This regime has shown itself, for better or worse, to be pretty far thinking in its energy policies, so hopefully they'll continue on that path economically as well.
Ironically in the US, under capitalist systems, short term gains are usually prioritized. Couple that with the "legalized bribery" of our lobbying system and a certain supreme court decision and it's easy to see why there is so much opposition to short term loss for POTENTIAL long term gains on the propping up of renewables over fossil fuels.
So the IEA 2020 report repeats what I’ve said before. Renewables are going to be adopted at the expense of fossil fuels at such a pace that the limitation is the siting and construction of infrastructure not from Big Oil getting in the way. Primarily it will be environmental groups that oppose large renewable projects (Cf. Soda Mountain Solar and just one of its opponents). If the federal government starts throwing around trillions of dollars for implementation of a GND there will be hundreds of billions of dollars wasted and the average global temp in the year 2100 will be about what it will be sans GND.
People’s lives have a dollar value. We can argue over the ethics of that and we can argue over how much that value is or ought to be but as plain as can be human lives are only worth so much money.
Case in point:
Hawaii lets tourists in now. Yeah they have restrictions but there will be additional infections from that. And therefore additional deaths. Human life apparently has a price and can be measured in tourist dollars right now in Hawaii. Similarly AGW has a price and human beings don’t really care what it costs someone else, and so the cost will tend towards the maximum possible amount. That amount translates to about +2.5°C for the year 2100; barring near-miracle CC&S tech and/or nuclear fission at scale by 2050.
”Mark Hoover” wrote: Thanks for pointing out that short term warming isn't long term warming and the difference between the two. While that’s technically true, the CO2 was already there and its warming effect only temporarily masked by particulate pollution. That warming has not been captured by the average global climate model and is in fact not 0.1°C but no less than 0.5°C when pollution from the rest of the world outside China is included and you need to also realize that a similar degree of masking is caused from jet contrails. So, 0.5°C + 0.5°C = 1.0°C from particulate pollution alone. This issue was discussed way up thread.
Who cares if such warming is “short term” because it’s also long term. Just because CO2 warming has been masked by concomitant particulate pollution doesn’t make the effect/persistence of it “short term”.
.
As previously mentioned, health care costs are out of control due in no small part to government regulation. Looking at one artificially isolated section of the issue (opioid crisis) misses the most relevant point – the government does nothing well at scale besides blow #### up.
The dumbest thing along this opioid sub-topic is I can’t figure what's the point of using 30 years of government failure, and then only partial success, as a model for what needs to be done now with no-to-minimal error to combat AGW?
.
Relooking at just the costs of the opioid crisis we can see many significant other costs avoided and thus not accounted for:
So how much are the costs for all the doctor visits associated with the mismanagement of Big Pharma? The costs incurred before, during and after a prescription to make sure the prescribed poison is working.
So how much are the costs for all the associated lab costs involved in Big Pharma?
So how much are the costs for all the associated consulting fees for reading/presenting the lab results?
And how much are the costs for researching, making and marketing all the ###### ##### drugs in the first place (especially the ones that do way more harm than good - Oxycontin anyone? Xanax anyone?)?
I see these points as self-evident. These costs are not tracked by any of the studies my detractors have linked, nor can I find any numbers on this, but these are real costs. Suicide from Oxycontin addiction (now previously mentioned) is a real cost that gets misattributed to a mental health issue.
So how much are the costs for all the not-so-occasional side effects and drug interactions that result in more doctor visits and the occasional hospitalization?
I’ll give you an example:
The health/phys ed teacher in high school was on medicine for diabetes and two other ailments (high blood pressure and I don’t now remember the other). When the diabetes medication no longer compensated for his diet/lifestyle choices he actually buckled down and ditched the junk food and sedentary habits. Not only did he fully control his diabetic response but got off three of his four prescription medications entirely and reduced the dosage on the fourth by 50%. All within one year.
He was an amazing teacher. Was he more amazing when suffering from all the #### side effects from his "properly managed" healthcare? Because that's a real cost. Not just for him but his family and students. If you feel like #### all the time, albeit less like #### than when suffering the full effects of diabetes, there are patent knock-on effects not measured by any paper on the <substitute name here> crisis I've seen.
Point being:
Counter to the Big Pharma way of doing healthcare, looking at health as a whole person allows us to see the effects not captured in narrower studies. The metalhead admits to either 1.0% or 1.7% GDP for opioids alone but I maintain with examples that accounting for all of the remaining smaller crises (with Xanax being nearly as big as Oxycontin) brings the American healthcare costs to withing margin of error for European systems.
Now having considered these not so hidden costs and government’s direct management (VA) and indirect management (#### regulation muddied by Big Pharma execs cycling from private to cabinet positions regardless of party in power), ask yourself the following question:
Given the budget sizes are two to three orders of magnitude different (GND being far larger than healthcare):
Do you think the management of a GND will go any better?
Why?
Quark Blast wrote: People’s lives have a dollar value. We can argue over the ethics of that and we can argue over how much that value is or ought to be but as plain as can be human lives are only worth so much money. Nothing you can say will ever convince me or anyone with a shred of decency or morals that is true. The only thing you've done in this thread is to show how hard you're willing to work in order to push your obscene and insane worldview that human life or even more so, entire peoples are not worth saving because it is expensive.
I'm honestly glad that you're wasting your time doing this here though instead of trying to persuade people in other areas because at least it minimizes how much damage your warped and foul perspective can do. By all means, keep up the gish gallop, it only serves to highlight how wrong you are and delights me to know that you've wasted as much time and emotional energy as you have to espouse truly abhorrent opinions fed to you by selfish and sadistic thinktanks meant to radicalize you into being their thoughtless mouthpiece.
You should be ashamed of yourself and you're lucky that anyone even bothers to try and engage with you given how much of a lost cause you truly are. You're not intellectual if you actually believe these things, you're a monster.
Themetricsystem wrote: Quark Blast wrote: People’s lives have a dollar value. We can argue over the ethics of that and we can argue over how much that value is or ought to be but as plain as can be human lives are only worth so much money. Nothing you can say will ever convince me or anyone with a shred of decency or morals that is true. The only thing you've done in this thread is to show how hard you're willing to work in order to push your obscene and insane worldview that human life or even moreso, entire peoples are not worth saving because it is expensive.
I'm honestly glad that you're wasting your time doing this here though instead of trying to persuade people in other areas because at least it minimizes how much damage your warped and foul perspective can do. By all means, keep up the gish gallop, it only serves to highlight how wrong you are and delights me to know that you've wasted as much time as you have to espouse truly abhorrent opinions fed to you by selfish and sadistic thinktanks meant to radicalize you into being their thoughtless mouthpiece.
You should be ashamed of yourself and you're lucky that anyone even bothers to try and engage with you given how much of a lost cause you truly are. You say that with the authority of someone who's actually considered and answered the case in point I just provided.
Provided here again now for your convenience (because I really am a stand-up guy):
Case in point:
Hawaii lets tourists in now. Yeah they have restrictions but there will be additional infections from that. And therefore additional deaths. Human life apparently has a price and can be measured in tourist dollars right now in Hawaii.
Quark Blast wrote: As previously mentioned, health care costs are out of control due in no small part to government regulation. Looking at one artificially isolated section of the issue (opioid crisis) misses the most relevant point – the government does nothing well at scale besides blow #### up.
The dumbest thing along this opioid sub-topic is I can’t figure what's the point of using 30 years of government failure, and then only partial success, as a model for what needs to be done now with no-to-minimal error to combat AGW?
You haven't provided any evidence to suggest that what you are saying is true. Therefore it is only your opinion, and per your comment about opinions, it can now be disregarded.
Themetricsystem wrote: Quark Blast wrote: People’s lives have a dollar value. We can argue over the ethics of that and we can argue over how much that value is or ought to be but as plain as can be human lives are only worth so much money. Nothing you can say will ever convince me or anyone with a shred of decency or morals that is true. The only thing you've done in this thread is to show how hard you're willing to work in order to push your obscene and insane worldview that human life or even more so, entire peoples are not worth saving because it is expensive. Brief follow-up: As Lois Bujold wrote in Shards of Honor: "A price is something you pay. A cost is something you lose." I agree there's no PRICE on life. But there is a COST for its loss. I suspect there's some conflating of the two concepts going on; it's not that organizations are putting a price on life (other than that Pinto incident ages ago, and other things like that), but more that there's a cost no matter what, and in both ways there will be suffering that increases chances of death. Aka, a rock and a hard place: which one has the lowest COST to life?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark Blast wrote: Case in point:
Hawaii lets tourists in now. Yeah they have restrictions but there will be additional infections from that. And therefore additional deaths. Human life apparently has a price and can be measured in tourist dollars right now in Hawaii.
You are only looking at one side of the equation.
Tourism is a major part of Hawaii's economy. Without it both the local population and the government have less money coming in. Which means less for healthcare and other life saving expenses. So less tourism dollars means additional deaths too.
Ergo, what a responsible government actually does is not 'decide the value of human life', as you put it, but attempt to find the policies which best preserve and enhance the most lives.
Hawaii has averaged less than one coronavirus death per day since the virus reached the island. That's an extremely low level, and so long as they can maintain it they are right to reduce restrictions that could cause equal or greater deaths.
Quark Blast wrote: While that’s technically true, the CO2 was already there and its warming effect only temporarily masked by particulate pollution. That warming has not been captured by the average global climate model... This will remain obvious nonsense no matter how often you repeat it. The impacts of changing levels of particulate pollution were one of the very first factors implemented in global climate models. Indeed, the big 'warming or cooling' debate in the 1960s was over whether the cooling from particulate pollution or the warming from greenhouse gas accumulation would prove to be the stronger forcing... an issue which was resolved roughly half a century ago, yet here you are pretending that it is still an 'unknown' that scientists fail to account for.
Here's a source (probably not the one he used) for CBDunkerson's Hawaii death rate statistic. Practically the first thing I saw on a Google search. Also the second result.
Please remember to cite sources, people!
One thing regarding GND vs not: you miss 100% of the shots you don't take. You make at least some of the shots you do take.
james014Aura wrote: Here's a source (probably not the one he used) for CBDunkerson's Hawaii death rate statistic. Practically the first thing I saw on a Google search. Also the second result.
Please remember to cite sources, people!
One thing regarding GND vs not: you miss 100% of the shots you don't take. You make at least some of the shots you do take.
Yeah J14, that's kinda what I've said upthread. I'd rather go broke TRYING to save the world w/the GND than keep my money and have my kids inherit a planet where they have to go live underground.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: james014Aura wrote: Here's a source (probably not the one he used) for CBDunkerson's Hawaii death rate statistic. Practically the first thing I saw on a Google search. Also the second result.
Please remember to cite sources, people!
One thing regarding GND vs not: you miss 100% of the shots you don't take. You make at least some of the shots you do take.
Yeah J14, that's kinda what I've said upthread. I'd rather go broke TRYING to save the world w/the GND than keep my money and have my kids inherit a planet where they have to go live underground. As I just posted:
"Renewables are going to be adopted at the expense of fossil fuels at such a pace that the limitation is the siting and construction of infrastructure not from Big Oil getting in the way. Primarily it will be environmental groups that oppose large renewable projects..."
The only thing throwing trillions of dollars (to be repaid later with taxes on a grossly inflated dollar hardly worth the paper it's printed on) into a GND will do is slow things down and ensure no middle class by 2050. Now if your kids will be 1%-ers by then I guess you need not care about the blow-by burning up the middle class.
Do something proven with your money. Take a look at the projects The Nature Conservancy coordinates and/or funds. Actual science-based approaches to these various environmental problems.
CB wrote: Hawaii has averaged less than one coronavirus death per day since the virus reached the island. That's an extremely low level, and so long as they can maintain it they are right to reduce restrictions that could cause equal or greater deaths. Of course they'll be a good two weeks into the "Oh ####, we didn't maintain it" before they know they didn't.
Like I said, more exposure = more deaths and Hawaiians, on average, want to continue their middle class lifestyle rather than be poor. They know they'll be poor with a perpetual lock down, they only strongly suspect, with good reason, that they won't personally be among those that catch the virus from tourists. But somebodies will, and some of those will die before they can lock down the island again sufficiently.
Themetricsystem wrote: Quark Blast wrote: People’s lives have a dollar value. We can argue over the ethics of that and we can argue over how much that value is or ought to be but as plain as can be human lives are only worth so much money. ....I'm honestly glad that you're wasting your time doing this here though instead of trying to persuade people in other areas because at least it minimizes how much damage your warped and foul perspective can do.... Forgot to answer this previously. Sorry.
Ever hear of copy-and-paste?
I must say, it mitigates virtually all the time I "waste" on these forums. Ah the wonders of technology! Totally levels the playing field - gods among men (Elon!) get equal time with most pedestrian hacks among us.
:D
@Mark Hoover
Looks like the worlds richest person agrees with me.
Yep... not surprised really. After all the guy's a true genius.
MW wrote: The top Earth Fund grants so far are earmarked for The Nature Conservancy, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund, World Resources Institute and the World Wildlife Fund, all long-established organizations that will each receive $100 million.
So Biden wants to use the Dept of the Interior the way that Trump did, to incentivize renewables on public land. If the argument is that infrastructure is too costly and will be opposed by environmental groups, wouldn't renewable leases manage part of that?
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: So Biden wants to use the Dept of the Interior the way that Trump did, to incentivize renewables on public land. If the argument is that infrastructure is too costly and will be opposed by environmental groups, wouldn't renewable leases manage part of that? Good question, though I may have anticipated this with one of my more recent posts:
"So the IEA 2020 report repeats what I’ve said before. Renewables are going to be adopted at the expense of fossil fuels at such a pace that the limitation is the siting and construction of infrastructure not from Big Oil getting in the way. Primarily it will be environmental groups that oppose large renewable projects (Cf. Soda Mountain Solar and just one of its opponents)."
I expect any development of public land to get hammered by the various conservation groups in court. Except The Nature Conservancy, they don't do lawsuits as they are largely a waste of time long term and TNC is all about thinking long term and globally.
.
In other news, government-style bureaucracy at work:
Coronavirus Outbreak at W.H.O. Headquarters in Geneva Switzerland.
In other news, private sector bureaucracy at work:
At Disney World, ‘Worst Fears’ About Virus Have Not Come True
Huh?
:D
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: So Biden wants to use the Dept of the Interior the way that Trump did, to incentivize renewables on public land. If the argument is that infrastructure is too costly and will be opposed by environmental groups, wouldn't renewable leases manage part of that? Setting aside the facts that renewable infrastructure is the least expensive option and renewables are strongly supported by environmental groups in most cases... yes that is an example of one of the many ways governments could speed the transition to renewable energy without spending 'massive amounts of money' or introducing 'crippling bureaucracy'.
Fossil fuel companies have long benefited from ridiculously low lease costs for publicly owned land and water... essentially a government subsidy supporting them. If the same option is extended to renewable energy then they have vastly more areas available for development and can do so at even lower costs. Going further, governments could also scale back or end such leasing for fossil fuels... which would greatly reduce GHG emissions, again without any of the 'massive cost' and 'bureaucratic nightmares' claimed.
At this point, 'solving the global warming problem' isn't even difficult... overcoming misinformation and delusional thinking is the real problem.
No one doubts environmental groups as a unit "strongly support" renewable energy in general.
My point was that they clearly won't act as a unit in support of said projects on public land. I linked to a specific solar project where that very opposition is rather fierce and likely to succeed. In fact I can't find any environmental group that supports the Soda Mountain Solar project.
The previous post's link to Greenpeace says nothing in support of siting wind and/or solar projects on public land. There may not be a CO2 reason to for environmental groups to oppose wind/solar on public land but the footprint of those projects carving up wilderness is enough to rally against it - as NPCA is actively against Soda Mountain Solar.
CB wrote: At this point, 'solving the global warming problem' isn't even difficult... Indeed so! Unless of course some thoughtless rube and cohorts start throwing trillions of dollars in incentives for contractors to build #### we don't need in places where we least want it. Picks up Crystal Ball and peers intently for a moment... Yeah, that'll be a thing by next year.
The $2.5 trillion reason we can’t rely on batteries to clean up the grid ”MIT” wrote: Building the level of renewable generation and storage necessary to reach the state’s goals would drive up costs exponentially, from $49 per megawatt-hour of generation at 50 percent to $1,612 at 100 percent.
And that's assuming lithium-ion batteries will cost roughly a third what they do now <meaning July 2018, and 1/3 is the projected decrease BTW>.
.
Here is a recent non-####### debate between Jeff Nesbit and Bjorn Lomborg on whether humanity should aim for a “carbon neutral” 2040.
Should We Abolish Fossil Fuels to Stop Global Warming? A Soho Forum Debate
It’s well moderated and .
Some of the more salient points were given at 45:00-43:30+-,
+-45:00-46:00,
50:00-50:50,
52:45-56:00,
1:12:30-1:13:58,
1:15:00-1:17:15
but the entire thing is worth watching.
I find it amusing that Jeff Nesbit’s argument boils down to ‘a carbon neutral economy is inevitable’ so let’s go all in. Why not? For one, I’d like to have a likely middle class living waiting for me in 2050 and not the poverty of paying back the trillions of dollars of debt a carbon neutral 2040 would give us. And if it’s already screaming forward at an inevitable pace, well, let it and not tax my future to death thanks.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark Blast wrote: The $2.5 trillion reason we can’t rely on batteries to clean up the grid ”MIT” wrote: Building the level of renewable generation and storage necessary to reach the state’s goals would drive up costs exponentially, from $49 per megawatt-hour of generation at 50 percent to $1,612 at 100 percent.
And that's assuming lithium-ion batteries will cost roughly a third what they do now <meaning July 2018, and 1/3 is the projected decrease BTW>.
Try again. The article was written in 2018. The MIT study it was citing was released in 2016. Based on 2015 prices. The rates assumed are thus wildly out of date.
More importantly, the study was assuming massive amounts of year long storage... charging up lithium ion batteries with excess solar during the Summer to get through the Winter months. That's an absurd scenario. Instead, any remotely competent grid operator is going to have Wind power (which generally does BETTER in Winter than it does in Summer), other 'overcapacity' options, larger grids, and non-lithium long term storage (e.g. pumped hydro) to make up most of the seasonal solar difference.
Studies of things nobody is talking about doing exist only to spread confusion.
This study, from last year, discusses some of the more plausible options for transitioning to renewable power... without increasing costs.
Though, at that... $2.5 trillion isn't even one year's worth of the US budget deficit at this point. That is, we're adding more in government debt EVERY YEAR than your absurdly inflated figure for permanently getting to 100% renewable energy would cost.
Quark Blast wrote: Here is a recent non-####### debate between Jeff Nesbit and Bjorn Lomborg on whether humanity should aim for a “carbon neutral” 2040. Bjorn Lomborg doesn't debate. He deceives. For example, his very first argument... 'global warming is only a moderate problem because far more people rate poverty as their top concern'. That's the 'logical' equivalent of saying that global nuclear war wouldn't be a big deal because people are more interested in who won American Idol. He's a professional scam artist.
Quark Blast wrote: I find it amusing that Jeff Nesbit’s argument boils down to ‘a carbon neutral economy is inevitable’ so let’s go all in. Why not? For one, I’d like to have a likely middle class living waiting for me in 2050 and not the poverty of paying back the trillions of dollars of debt a carbon neutral 2040 would give us. It is inevitable because it is cheaper.
The 'OMG they are going to destroy the economy!' stuff is complete nonsense. Just like it was when fighting ozone depletion was going to destroy the economy. Just like when catalytic converters were going to destroy the economy. Stop the alarmist nonsense. Things that cost LESS do not bankrupt the economy.
One of the biggest arguments for the KXL pipeline has been how it will be a job creator. So, if laying a mess of pipe all over the place will be a boon to the economy b/c job creation, why would it be financial ruin to move toward renewables which would require the construction of lots of infrastructure?
Its like, if a fossil fuel project delivers job creation, proponents are crowing but if the same argument is made for renewables all we hear is that we're facing an economic apocalypse.
One of the problems of the construction jobs point is that they are typically short lived jobs. Once the infrastructure is built, it's a tiny fraction of the jobs remain. (there's a similar argument against building stadiums, the construction jobs last a year or two, and then after that it's only part-time minimum wage jobs)
I guess we could say that fossil fuels does have one major advantage. Environmental disasters are far worse, and therefore require more people to be trained and maintained as cleanup crews should anything go wrong.
If we want a case study, I did some research on the Enbridge Line 6B discharge. I used it for a paper discussing Enbridge's new proposed line in Minnesota. We can look at things like SEC filings, court judgements, toxicity reports, etc.
IT, I was more making the point that lobbyists, media and other proponents of fossil fuels scream LOUD about said job creation as a benefit to THEIR projects, but then those same voices poo poo all over the SAME argument that could be made for renewable infrastructure. My frustration comes from folks telling me, over and over, that converting to renewables just isn't financially viable even though, from everything I'm seeing recently, from sources like Forbes, cost even for large-scale renewable conversions and battery storage continue dropping.
So, the source I cited above suggests that in China it would be more financially advantageous for them to continue adding more renewables. C to the BDunkerson has shown several times how renewables in general are becoming more lucrative. For a brief time, building renewable infrastructure would bring the same or more jobs than building more fossil fuel sources. Despite ALL of this, there are "experts" on YouTube and in the news telling us that changing to renewables would absolutely obliterate global economies.
It is... frustrating.
Oh, I'm with you. Just pointing out an area where fossil fuels might have a legitimate advantage. It's just one that comes with a terrible localized environmental cost as well. I'm being sarcastic in my proposal here.
It would be equivalent to arguing that we should reduce the penalties for arson, so that arsonists get out prison sooner and start more fires... so we can hire more fire fighters as a jobs program.
|
