• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

UN Climate Change Conference 2009

Status
Not open for further replies.

cntr

Banned
iamcool388 said:
This is the part where I :lol

Ri'Orius said:
This is the part, by the way, where you claim that all scientists are dogmatic about global warming, and would never accept anything that goes against their gospel regardless of the quality of the research.

Impressive. The last laugh goes to Ri'Orius here.
 

Ri'Orius

Member
XCell9200 said:
Obviously I'm not saying they deserve to be published in peer-reviewed journals simply because they have an opposing view. I'm saying that the emails suggest that regardless of whether their methods were sound and their conclusions were legitimate, they are being stonewalled (and flat out ignored) by the community at large. For example:

(hacked email)

iamcool388 said:
Yeah, that would make sense... unless the journals are being pressured not to publish them at all?

(hacked email)

The scientists are pressuring the journals to not publish studies that they consider rubbish. Why is that a problem? I mean, if these scientists are willing to shun the journal over publishing these papers, doesn't that indicate that a number of scientists have an issue with these papers? That these papers aren't accepted by the scientific community?

XCell9200, you say that this was being done "regardless of whether their methods were sound and their conclusions were legitimate." Where do you get that? Sounds to me like the author of that email is discounting the paper because their methods weren't sound, their conclusions weren't legitimate.

Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas#Controversy_over_the_2003_Climate_Research_paper

Sounds like a lot of scientists don't agree that this was a sound paper, worthy of publication.

But I am sure they arent dogmatic about the public perception of Global Warming and how it is being shaped.

(quote re:redefining peer-review)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

Remember, you're reading emails sent between colleagues. It's completely reasonable to say something outlandish like that when you're just chatting with friends.

I mean, if the guy had written "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to strangle them with our bare hands!" would you be waiting for the conspiracy to commit murder charges to be filed?

Unless you have evidence that these guys did redefine peer-review, you've got nothing--just the words of some frustrated scientists speaking in (presumed) private.

Impressive. The last laugh goes to Ri'Orius here.

:lol I appreciate the support, but I've no need to resort to semantics.

Amusing point, certainly, but I think I've got a lot more than just that bit going for me.
 
cntrational said:
Impressive. The last laugh goes to Ri'Orius here.

Aaah, a hair splitter, as well as a textualist! I look forward to seeing your spirited defense of Scalia opinions in future Supreme Court threads.

Ri'Orius said:
You say that this was being done "regardless of whether their methods were sound and their conclusions were legitimate." Where do you get that? Sounds to me like the author of that email is discounting the paper because their methods weren't sound, their conclusions weren't legitimate.

I dont remember saying that... but thanks for the links. Checking them out now.

P.S. Does anyone really think there will be a consensus at Copenhagen? I'm just waiting for the lulz.
 

Furcas

Banned
A few points about scientific consensus:

- No matter how often scientific consensus will turn out to be wrong, it will be wrong a lot less often than any set of revolutionary opinions. In other words, if, say, 70% of the scientific consensus of the year 1800 has turned out to be wrong, you can be almost certain that the opinions that diverged from consensus of any one scientist who lived in 1800 will turn out to be 95%+ wrong. Therefore, if you're going to believe anything about a scientific field that you don't understand as well as the experts, your best bet by far is to go along with the consensus.

- Scientific consensus is evidence for the truth of a theory. It's not a direct observation, but it's evidence nonetheless. If mostly rational people who know about and understand the direct observations all tend to agree with one another about the right conclusion, the odds are that they are correct. Or at least, to refer to the previous point, the odds that they are correct are a lot bigger than the odds that anybody else is correct.

- Putting together a long list of the instances when scientists were 'wrong' is misleading. There is only one set of beliefs that correspond exactly to reality, that are 'true' in the absolute sense of the word, but that doesn't mean that all beliefs that are false are equally false. To paraphrase Isaac Asimov, the belief that the Earth is flat is 'wrong', and so is the belief that the Earth is spherical (it's actually ellipsoidal), but the belief that the Earth is spherical is a lot less wrong than the belief that it's flat! Pointing out all the times that the scientific consensus has been wrong doesn't mean anything without also saying how wrong it was (and what percentage of the time it's been wrong).
 

Ri'Orius

Member
iamcool388 said:
I dont remember saying that... but thanks for the links. Checking them out now.

Yeah, sorry, I was replying to you and XCell9200 at the same time, since you each quoted Climategate emails along the same lines. He said that. I'll go edit my post to make the distinction clear.

My bad.
 
there are people who believe that climate change is not our fault?
seriously?

we are constantly pumping quadzillions tons of CO2 and way worse shit into the sky for over 150 years now and you seriously think it got no effect?

shut the fuck up
I really wonder what will happen in 100 years when most seaside cities will vanish
where is your New York and Tokio then?
 

bjaelke

Member
fanboi said:
Was there any hope to this thread? :|
Depends on what we're discussing. Rather than looking at the climate issue and discussing if there's any at all, we should discuss what this conference can offer - not just in terms of a political agreement but also in terms of new products, redefining concepts and individual awareness.

The "citizens" of Christiania are hosting their own conference parallel to COP 15 where they look at innovation and sustainable development. The conference or gathering if you like is not that big but yet they've still managed to create a lot of (national?) buzz. National news media are each day broadcasting from the alternative COP 15 conference where politics or scientific journals are not fundamental.

I know the politicians have also tried to appeal to the citizens through a campaign called Raise Your Voice but as you can see by the number of video responses it failed. It also got a lot of negative press because HRH looks like a school boy rather than a leader. Mind you the Raise Your Voice campaign didn't do the job. That doesn't mean however that people don't want to talk about what we can do.

Even if we completely ignore the climate changes caused by our excessive consumption of different resources there'll still be social and economical consequences. Eventually we'll just end up hosting an economic/social conference because resources have become scarce and third world countries are struggling even more than today. The resources are not infinite and will cause a problem sooner than later - climate change or no climate change. That said I believe we can discuss the politics happening at COP 15 without turning it into a debate over semantics and scientific "facts" where people are just quoting different researchers that contradict each other.

I've absolutely no insight in the climate debate when we're dealing with the science. I just study sustainable development which focuses on solutions.
 

operon

Member
bjaelke said:
Depends on what we're discussing. Rather than looking at the climate issue and discussing if there's any at all, we should discuss what this conference can offer - not just in terms of a political agreement but also in terms of new products, redefining concepts and individual awareness.

The "citizens" of Christiania are hosting their own conference parallel to COP 15 where they look at innovation and sustainable development. The conference or gathering if you like is not that big but yet they've still managed to create a lot of (national?) buzz. National news media are each day broadcasting from the alternative COP 15 conference where politics or scientific journals are not fundamental.

I know the politicians have also tried to appeal to the citizens through a campaign called Raise Your Voice but as you can see by the number of video responses it failed. It also got a lot of negative press because HRH looks like a school boy rather than a leader. Mind you the Raise Your Voice campaign didn't do the job. That doesn't mean however that people don't want to talk about what we can do.

Even if we completely ignore the climate changes caused by our excessive consumption of different resources there'll still be social and economical consequences. Eventually we'll just end up hosting an economic/social conference because resources have become scarce and third world countries are struggling even more than today. The resources are not infinite and will cause a problem sooner than later - climate change or no climate change. That said I believe we can discuss the politics happening at COP 15 without turning it into a debate over semantics and scientific "facts" where people are just quoting different researchers that contradict each other.

I've absolutely no insight in the climate debate when we're dealing with the science. I just study sustainable development which focuses on solutions.

aye, can we get back to tlking about the conferences and not whether its true or not. I have doubts about whether man is causing this or not, but adopting a wait and see approach isn't really a good idea since if its true and we do nothing then we're up the shit..
 

dalin80

Banned
Will this conference stop any of these issues-


Stop china building a new dirty coal power station every 5 minutes.

stop india etc's massive industrial growth regardless of cost.

Stop politicians and others of the stinking rich variety from swanning around the globe in single seat 747's.

Stop the the devastation to the amazon (and other) rainforest.

Stop the words population growing even further away from the sustainability mark.


I think its safe to say no to all the above as the countries involved will not do anything that could damage there profits, and thats just the ones that have turned up. Poorer countries will carry on because they are pissed that they got left behind by the industrial revolution (tough shit, your fault for being too slow) while the rich countries will promise to crackdown hard and promise to cut output 0.01% by 2050.

All that is going to happen is that gordon brown is going to say my car is solely responsible for every pollutant in the world and will add another tax.
 

Kurtofan

Member
We already see the effects of Climate Change in Africa.
I hope this conference will come up with solutions to this vital problem that concerns all nations in the world.
 
dalin80 said:
Will this conference stop any of these issues-


Stop china building a new dirty coal power station every 5 minutes.

stop india etc's massive industrial growth regardless of cost.

Stop politicians and others of the stinking rich variety from swanning around the globe in single seat 747's.

Stop the the devastation to the amazon (and other) rainforest.

Stop the words population growing even further away from the sustainability mark.


I think its safe to say no to all the above as the countries involved will not do anything that could damage there profits, and thats just the ones that have turned up. Poorer countries will carry on because they are pissed that they got left behind by the industrial revolution (tough shit, your fault for being too slow) while the rich countries will promise to crackdown hard and promise to cut output 0.01% by 2050.

All that is going to happen is that gordon brown is going to say my car is solely responsible for every pollutant in the world and will add another tax.
I'm sorry to be so blunt, but read up on your history. We've exploited the south for centuries and gotten rich at the expense of nature and the south in general. I think "though luck" is just a horrible thing to say and not fair at all. Sure, you can say "I personally am not to blame", but that falls right into the mentality that everything can continue to get fucked up because we'll all be dead by the time shit really hits the fan.

I think it's a fair assessment that we've gotten a free pass to develop our society and industry without having to deal with the consequences of our doing, while the developing countries now suddenly have to deal with another hurdle against economic development. However, going back the the actual goals of this conference, it should not mean that the third world can "go on and pollute" because we did as well. Instead, they should also develop a clean and healthy economy, BUT significantly financed by the west. That little bit of money we'd put in their countries wouldn't even be a fraction of all the money we've robbed from those countries over the past 200 years. And being realistic and/or cynic, I'm sure the West will find a way to make this "financing clean development" a profiting business anyway.

Your points though, just my thoughts:

  • I hope China has a positive attitude during this conference and doesn't keep bringing up "but we're part of the third world!". But even if they are the biggest polluter in the world right now, the pollution per capita is still lower than that of the US or EU. Again, doesn't give them a free pass, but you always have to keep perspective. I read somewhere that China wants to cut it's CO2 output per capita by half by 2020. That's a good start I guess.
  • Seems to be one of the least willing countries to do something themselves
  • I agree that overtly luxurious lifestyles of politicians sends a mixed message. But to point the finger to "politicians" and use it as an excuse to negate the whole idea of this conference altogether (I'm not saying you do) is not fair imho. There will always be assholes (in every sector or industry), but there are lots of efforts being done to prevent this summit from being a big polluter. Also, to point out the "one seat 747" example. I doubt it would be considered safe to let the President of the US travel in a regular flight to Copenhagen. And I think the President has a lot of staff on the Air Force one anyway. There has to be a compromise between what's ideal and doable.
    In general though: yes, a mentality change is necessary and should come quicker than now. A small example is that politicians in my country are not allowed anymore to drive in a car that is not conform the "clean car" norms. If you want to change the behavior of the execs in the private industry, I think regulations will be necessary, but then you'll get lots of whining because "the government is interfering with our lives/free market/private sector again!!"
  • I really really agree with you about the rain forests. Jesus christ, the uncontrolled cutting of forests is just devastating, for the environment, fauna, flora and us humans. Extinction of species, the destruction of the earth's lungs, ... even the (very important but often forgotten) details like materials and resources to create medicins, ... The rain forests are capital.
  • Another difficult issue. I personally would like to see a "max" on the worlds population, but how you are going to make this into a binding regulation around the world, and a way to control/maintain that...can of worms.
 

Javaman

Member
iamaustrian said:
there are people who believe that climate change is not our fault?
seriously?

we are constantly pumping quadzillions tons of CO2 and way worse shit into the sky for over 150 years now and you seriously think it got no effect?

shut the fuck up
I really wonder what will happen in 100 years when most seaside cities will vanish
where is your New York and Tokio then?

Nice straw man.

Even if all human controlled CO2 stopped, the Earth would still be heating up and glaciers would still be melting. We're in the middle of an interglacial cycle.



The Earth is heating up and we "might" be contributing to it, but the argument is how much we are responsible for compared to natural cycles.
 

Javaman

Member
dalin80 said:
Will this conference stop any of these issues-


Stop china building a new dirty coal power station every 5 minutes.

stop india etc's massive industrial growth regardless of cost.

Stop politicians and others of the stinking rich variety from swanning around the globe in single seat 747's.

Stop the the devastation to the amazon (and other) rainforest.

Stop the words population growing even further away from the sustainability mark.


I think its safe to say no to all the above as the countries involved will not do anything that could damage there profits, and thats just the ones that have turned up. Poorer countries will carry on because they are pissed that they got left behind by the industrial revolution (tough shit, your fault for being too slow) while the rich countries will promise to crackdown hard and promise to cut output 0.01% by 2050.

All that is going to happen is that gordon brown is going to say my car is solely responsible for every pollutant in the world and will add another tax.

Don't forget about the coal mine fires in China which produce more CO2 then all of the automobiles and light trucks in the USA
 

operon

Member
Souldriver said:
[*]Another difficult issue. I personally would like to see a "max" on the worlds population, but how you are going to make this into a binding regulation around the world, and a way to control/maintain that...can of worms.[/LIST]

regulation isn't the answer to that, just look at China. You have to look at the reasons why some countries have very high birth rates, in a lot of third world countries big families are used as pensions and with high child mortality rates you needs many children as insurance as it were. If you look at richer countries people tend to choose smaller families naturally wanting to mantain a particular lifestyle and bing able to provide that for their children.
 

Fjolle

Member
Javaman said:
http://i47.tinypic.com/nqa5hw.png[IMG]

The Earth is heating up and we "might" be contributing to it, but the argument is how much we are responsible for compared to natural cycles.[/QUOTE]
Afaik, the co2 level atm is 100 ppmv higher than the highest point on that graph. But this thread should be about policies and the conference, so lets keep it at that and discuss the other stuff in other threads about that mkay? :)
 

Javaman

Member
Fjolle said:
Afaik, the co2 level atm is 100 ppmv higher than the highest point on that graph. But this thread should be about policies and the conference, so lets keep it at that and discuss the other stuff in other threads about that mkay? :)

Yeah, it wouldn't show up on a map with that scale.
 

Neo C.

Member
The better the final results in the conference, the better for the economy of my country. Technology for more efficiency and more environment friendliness needs supportive laws, otherwise it's hard for the companies to invest in these developments.
 

Fjolle

Member
Javaman said:
Yeah, it wouldn't show up on a map with that scale.
Huh?


The better the final results in the conference, the better for the economy of my country. Technology for more efficiency and more environment friendliness needs supportive laws, otherwise it's hard for the companies to invest in these developments.

Yea. I need good result so vestas will hire me after i graduate... :)
 
Javaman said:
Nice straw man.

Even if all human controlled CO2 stopped, the Earth would still be heating up and glaciers would still be melting. We're in the middle of an interglacial cycle.

http://i47.tinypic.com/nqa5hw.png[IMG]

The Earth is heating up and we "might" be contributing to it, but the argument is how much we are responsible for compared to natural cycles.[/QUOTE]

oh come on, we all know(I bloody hope so anyway) that we slowly change this planet into a stinking rotten ball of junk. It's not only the shit we pump up into the air. Look at all the rest we have done/are we doing to this plant.
"Massive pollution" is the word and it's [B]only[/B] caused by fucking humans.

but, as someone before posted, this doesn't belong here. so I'm sorry for derailing
 

Javaman

Member
Fjolle said:
Huh?




Yea. I need good result so vestas will hire me after i graduate... :)

A chart graphing temperatures from the last 400,000 years isn't going to accurately show a CO2 increase that occured in the last one or two hundred years. It would only be a small fraction of a pixel wide.
 
iamaustrian said:
oh come on, we all know(I bloody hope so anyway) that we slowly change this planet into a stinking rotten ball of junk. It's not only the shit we pump up into the air. Look at all the rest we have done/are we doing to this plant.
"Massive pollution" is the word and it's only caused by fucking humans.

but, as someone before posted, this doesn't belong here. so I'm sorry for derailing
Don't be sorry. You have fed a denier's family for a month.
 

Chrono

Banned
JohnTinker said:
I'm still amazed that some people are so fucking dumb enough to believe that CO2 is a pollutant

I can't wait until intelligence-enhancing technology and genetic engineering is advanced and adopted to the point where your kind is extinct or an irrelevant minority.

shaft said:
Even if you don't believe in climate change, at least acknowledge the fact that we are indeed raping the earth with our nearly 7 billion souls.

So?

dalin80 said:
Stop china building a new dirty coal power station every 5 minutes.
.

I think it's every week, not 5 minutes. Really, you'd think that number would make you pause for a second.
 

Fjolle

Member
There doesn't seem to happen anything politically today at the summit.

Danish police has urgently sent people to the danish-german border to stop protesters, and something has happened at a place where the police wanted to store arrested protestors involving EOD and police with machine guns. No fights and burning the streets :( (yet).

Javaman said:
A chart graphing temperatures from the last 400,000 years isn't going to accurately show a CO2 increase that occured in the last one or two hundred years. It would only be a small fraction of a pixel wide.
Then the chart is kinda useless to demonstrate what we're doing right now :)
 

Javaman

Member
Fjolle said:
There doesn't seem to happen anything politically today at the summit.

Danish police has urgently sent people to the danish-german border to stop protesters, and something has happened at a place where the police wanted to store arrested protestors involving EOD and police with machine guns. No fights and burning the streets :( (yet).


Then the chart is kinda useless to demonstrate what we're doing right now :)

The point of the chart is to show what has been going on without human interaction.

To truly see human's effect on the climate, the global historic trends need to be removed and not claimed as part of the climate change debate.
 

bjaelke

Member


:lol

Banner leads to DirtyOilSands.org.

Canada is the only country in the world to ratify a Kyoto Protocol target and then simply walk away from it. And now, Canada is also working to actively undermine progress towards an ambitious, equitable, and legally binding international climate treaty.
 

dalin80

Banned
Chrono said:
I think it's every week, not 5 minutes. Really, you'd think that number would make you pause for a second.



Sorry, i thought my exageration for effect was obvious to anyone with a hint of common sen..... oh.

bad luck.
 

Woodsy

Banned
iamaustrian said:
oh come on, we all know(I bloody hope so anyway) that we slowly change this planet into a stinking rotten ball of junk. It's not only the shit we pump up into the air. Look at all the rest we have done/are we doing to this plant.
"Massive pollution" is the word and it's only caused by fucking humans.

but, as someone before posted, this doesn't belong here. so I'm sorry for derailing

And cow farts...
 
So according to the OP, it is "90% probable that humankind is largely responsible for modern-day climate change". That isn't completely definitive and it leaves a significant chance that humankind is not the major driving force behind climate change. Yet when some people even question the statement that "Humans are mainly responsible for climate change", they are jumped upon like a pack of wolves, called out for being a "climate change denier" and other such things. It's fucking ridiculous.

A more accurate statement would be a "climate change sceptic" which is what I consider myself to be. My problem is that climate change has been hijacked by politicians, policy makers and opposing sides that aren't even interested or knowledgeable in the debate at hand so much so that the entire issue and the science behind it has become so boring and diluted, weak and exaggerated, (from both sides) that I don't really give a shit about it anymore. Politics and science should not mix. It bores me. I view this conference with complete indifference.

I do however, completely agree that our dependance on fossil fuels need to be drastically cut and that renewable sources of energy need to be found and developed, because if we don't, then in about 100 years or so, we are going to be completely fucked. Just pour those billions/trillions of dollars into fusion R&D with non-lithium breeding. We could have an essentially endless supply of cheap, clean energy at our fingertips.
 

Fjolle

Member
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text
The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN's role in all future climate change negotiations.

The document is also being interpreted by developing countries as setting unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals.

The so-called Danish text, a secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as "the circle of commitment" – but understood to include the UK, US and Denmark – has only been shown to a handful of countries since it was finalised this week.

The agreement, leaked to the Guardian, is a departure from the Kyoto protocol's principle that rich nations, which have emitted the bulk of the CO2, should take on firm and binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, while poorer nations were not compelled to act. The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions.

The document was described last night by one senior diplomat as "a very dangerous document for developing countries. It is a fundamental reworking of the UN balance of obligations. It is to be superimposed without discussion on the talks".

A confidential analysis of the text by developing countries also seen by the Guardian shows deep unease over details of the text. In particular, it is understood to:

• Force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement;

• Divide poor countries further by creating a new category of developing countries called "the most vulnerable";

• Weaken the UN's role in handling climate finance;

• Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.

Developing countries that have seen the text are understood to be furious that it is being promoted by rich countries without their knowledge and without discussion in the negotiations.

"It is being done in secret. Clearly the intention is to get [Barack] Obama and the leaders of other rich countries to muscle it through when they arrive next week. It effectively is the end of the UN process," said one diplomat, who asked to remain nameless.

Antonio Hill, climate policy adviser for Oxfam International, said: "This is only a draft but it highlights the risk that when the big countries come together, the small ones get hurting. On every count the emission cuts need to be scaled up. It allows too many loopholes and does not suggest anything like the 40% cuts that science is saying is needed."

Hill continued: "It proposes a green fund to be run by a board but the big risk is that it will run by the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility [a partnership of 10 agencies including the World Bank and the UN Environment Programme] and not the UN. That would be a step backwards, and it tries to put constraints in developing countries when none were negotiated in earlier UN climate talks."

The text was intended by Denmark and rich countries to be a working framework, which would be adapted by countries over the next week. It is particularly inflammatory because it sidelines the UN negotiating process and suggests that rich countries are desperate for world leaders to have a text to work from when they arrive next week.

Few numbers or figures are included in the text because these would be filled in later by world leaders. However, it seeks to hold temperature rises to 2C and mentions the sum of $10bn a year to help poor countries adapt to climate change from 2012-15.
So... Theyre mad because they have to show something for the money theyre getting..?


liquid_gears said:
I view this conference with complete indifference.
Noone forced you to read this thread.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
I'm glad that most nations on this Earth are trying to do something to help the planet that we've been raping for years.
 
Fjolle said:
Noone forced you to read this thread.

So...

I don't understand your point.

I'm just giving my opinion, which I'm entitled to do. Duke Togo on the previous page gave a similar opinion to mine, of complete "indifference".
 

140.85

Cognitive Dissonance, Distilled
mckmas8808 said:
I'm glad that most nations on this Earth are trying to do something to help the planet that we've been raping for years.

WT...H. Is it rape rape?
 

Chrono

Banned
140.85 said:
WT...H. Is it rape rape?

Mother Earth is crying in pain. Don't you her weeping in the night? :lol

Edit: and most nations aren't getting together to 'help the planet', they're doing this to help themselves - because they live on this planet.

Either way moving to alternative energy is good and not just a cause for nutcases. Developing alternative to oil and natural gas will deprive a lot of fascist, backward and barbaric nations of a lot of money. That's good and most people should be on board with that.
 

Woodsy

Banned
Fjolle said:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text

So... Theyre mad because they have to show something for the money theyre getting..?



Noone forced you to read this thread.

No, they are mad because the "circle of commitment" (side note: holy shit, who came up with that name :lol ) wants (or at least the Danish text is being interpreted as such) to allow richer nations to emit nearly twice as much as those in developing nations.

Nothing like keeping the little guy down by forcing him to have less resources, AMIRITE?

Either way moving to alternative energy is good and not just a cause for nutcases. Developing alternative to oil and natural gas will deprive a lot of fascist, backward and barbaric nations of a lot of money. That's good and most people should be on board with that.

Yep, absolutely. I think the right way to go about it though is maybe through some sort of Manhattan Project - not through putting exhorbitant taxes on companies to try and force them (because they won't - they will just raise prices because energy is an inelastic commodity).
 

Woodsy

Banned
iamaustrian said:
I've never seen fat cows throwing their empty McDonalds' bags on the ground just because they are too lazy to walk to the next garbage can

You said only humans cause "massive pollution" and cows release a shit-ton of methane via burps and farts, which is a greenhouse gas. Is there really still a problem with littering? I haven't really seen it.
 
Woodsy said:
You said only humans cause "massive pollution" and cows release a shit-ton of methane via burps and farts, which is a greenhouse gas. Is there really still a problem with littering? I haven't really seen it.

our cows release a shit-ton of methan because they are way to many. and why are they way to many? RIGHT, because of us. we want the milk. we want the meat.

you are not honestly claiming that the cows are "polluting"(which is a normal body function) the air on purpose?

my littering example wasn't exactly good. I just wanted to say that we produce way more (bad-)trash than ever before.
 

Neo C.

Member
Woodsy said:
Yep, absolutely. I think the right way to go about it though is maybe through some sort of Manhattan Project - not through putting exhorbitant taxes on companies to try and force them (because they won't - they will just raise prices because energy is an inelastic commodity).
Ultimately, we should do both. Invest heavily in research and put pigovian taxes on oil and electric power.

The faster we go green, the better. It's a shame that we are still heavily dependent on oil of Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. Chavez wouldn't be as successful as today without the oil.
 

Woodsy

Banned
Neo C. said:
Ultimately, we should do both. Invest heavily in research and put pigovian taxes on oil and electric power.

The faster we go green, the better. It's a shame that we are still heavily dependent on oil of Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. Chavez wouldn't be as successful as today without the oil.

Just build some nuclear plants - we already have the solution without ridiculous taxes.
 

Atrus

Gold Member
Woodsy said:
Just build some nuclear plants - we already have the solution without ridiculous taxes.

Nuclear power is non-renewable and is actually a very short-term solution. It would buy humanity a little over a century of power before leaving us with nothing.

Humans need scalable renewable energies as soon as possible.
 

cntr

Banned
Aaah, a hair splitter, as well as a textualist! I look forward to seeing your spirited defense of Scalia opinions in future Supreme Court threads.

Given that you used a few scientists as an example with the clear implication that "all climate scientists are baaaad" (and used a :lol smiley), there isn't any need for semantics.

Stop china building a new dirty coal power station every 5 minutes.

Let me quote a post I made on the arugment that China pollutes more:
cntrational said:
Speaking of energy, do you remember the argument that reducing emissions will be useless because of places like China and it's their responsibility?

well

I was reading up on energy over here, and let me paraphrase what he said:

Note on measurements: The measurement used here is 1 metric tons (1000kg) of carbon dioxide-equivalent (the equivalent greenhouse effect of 1 ton of carbon dixoide from the various greenhouse gases) abbreviated as “1 t CO2e”.

In the year 2000, the world’s greenhouse gas emissions were about 34 billion tons of CO2-equivalent per year. Taking that number and dividing it with the world population gives us the greenhouse gas pollution per person: 5½ tons CO2e per year
per person. Taking this and representing it in a graph where the width is the population and the height is the amount of greenhouse gas per person gives us this:


Breaking this down into regions gives us this:


In the year 2000, Europe’s per-capita greenhouse gas emissions were
twice the world average; and North America’s were four times the world
average.

Breaking this down even further gives us:


Now, while China has an area big as the USA's, it's emissions per capita are below the world average, and India is around half the world average. And remember, the majority of China and India's emissions are from making stuff for rich countries.

Now, it isn't just the current rate of emissions that matters, it's the cumulative total emissions that also matters, now here's the total rate of emissions over the the period of 1880-2004:


QED.

Woodsy said:
And cow farts...

cntrational said:
Also, the argument of "but but but carbon dioxide isn't a problem, cows farting is a problem":

Red is carbon dioxide, Purple is methane and gray is nitrous oxide.


Breakdown of world greenhouse-gas emissions (2000) by cause and by gas. “Energy” includes power stations, industrial processes, transport, fossil fuel processing, and energy-use in buildings. “Land use, biomass burning” means changes in land use, deforestation, and the burning of un-renewed biomass such as peat. “Waste” includes waste disposal and treatment. The sizes indicate the 100-year global warming potential of each source. Source: Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research.
 
Atrus said:
Nuclear power is non-renewable and is actually a very short-term solution. It would buy humanity a little over a century of power before leaving us with nothing.

Humans need scalable renewable energies as soon as possible.

Thorium nuclear reactors would be fantastic alternatives to traditional ones. Plus, the US sits on like 20-something% of the world's thorium reserves.
 

sinxtanx

Member
Woodsy said:
You said only humans cause "massive pollution" and cows release a shit-ton of methane via burps and farts, which is a greenhouse gas. Is there really still a problem with littering? I haven't really seen it.
Cow farts are carbon that is already in circulation. Cows do not add to the amount of greenhouse gas, but cars and factories does.

Price Dalton said:
Thorium nuclear reactors would be fantastic alternatives to traditional ones. Plus, the US sits on like 20-something% of the world's thorium reserves.
Eh, fusion reactors all the way. Water is kind of available.
 

Chrono

Banned
Woodsy said:
Yep, absolutely. I think the right way to go about it though is maybe through some sort of Manhattan Project - not through putting exhorbitant taxes on companies to try and force them (because they won't - they will just raise prices because energy is an inelastic commodity).

For the record that's just one reason I think alternative energy should be promoted, I believe climate change is happening and rational measures taken to mitigate it. And by rational I mean a tax or cap-and-trade system and none of the leftists no-nukes or retarded ideas form so-called environmentalists that are just as dangerous to the world as people denying what's happening.

As for doing a Manhattan project, that just wouldn't work. There are dozens, actually hundreds of different technologies and approaches. Universities, venture capitalists, and established companies are better off dealing with this. And if you work on a select few, or even dozens, how good is good enough? A bomb just needed to blow up, but is 50% efficient solar PVs good enough or the same but at half the price? Again that's the sort of thing the market sorts out.

All that needs to be don is invest in science and and companies trying to solve this problem, help them push things faster and fund great or risky ideas.

A carbon tax (direct or indirect) would send a serious message to investors, get things moving faster. The targets are absurdly low, technology is moving frighteningly and awesomely fast right now. People just aren't comprehending the exponential curve we're on, and a huge boost in science and technology investing from the Obama administration, especially in energy, will accelerate things even more. If there is a tax now even more money would flow into alternative energy and companies and people start adopting those technologies faster because fossil fuels are more expensive - as they should be - and alternative ones are getting cheaper and better.

You don't think that small tax burden is worth it? Do you want to send another trillion to terror-supporting sheiks and gulf billionaires? the iranian revolutionary guard? The only reason Iran will mostlikey not be attacked and its nuke sites blown to pieces is because they can disrupt the world oil supply. This is a war. Climate Change should be used as a cover for that war, and pushed as far as possible.

There are even other benefits to alternative energy, poverty is one. Eventually those technologies will be extremely cheap, and could be easily adopted like solar panels and a cheap battery as opposed to a coal plant. More money into science for energy is also more money into science, this will accelerate the singularity and bring that point of human evolution closer.

I could type more and more on so many other benefits, but what's there is enough - the whole planet might be inhabitable. Don't believe it? OK, how about sending a few more trillion to muslim nations? Or launching the great next industry that will dwarf silicon valley? If none of these things interest you, then you're hopeless.

sinxtanx said:
Eh, fusion reactors all the way. Water is kind of available.

I watched an interview of energy secretary Chu by google's CEO at the company, and he said fusion is just too tough. They talked about a lot of ideas where he led a lab before to tackle climate change and fusion didn't end up taking much of their focus.

Even if someone does figure out, the technology needs to be cheap and built quickly for a massive roll out and that's not likely.

Edit: Here's the interview...

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/11/energy-secretary-steven-chu-visits.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom