The Environment Thread

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

5 minutes ago, pigseye said:

So, first you didn't believe NOAA, now you don't believe the American Geophysical Union, who's the flat-earther again? 

How can anyone take you seriously. 

 

Inform yourself --->  HERE.

 

[The Unknown Poster]

I have to be honest, I think climate change is real.  I think its not the calamity the climate change chicken littles think it is (I dont mean that as an insult just conveying the people who are really trying to drive panic).

What I saw a lot this year was a particular day with a high temp and lots of social media chatter about climate change.  But it would go like this "wow, today is the 4th hottest May 23rd in history.  Global Warming is real.  We must do something".  But the other 3 higher temps were like 1889, 1912, 1956 etc.  And I'd say Hmmmm

I recall reading that temperatures on Mars were also rising and that this phenomenon was not simply Earth-based.

I can recall being very young in school (think very early 80's and being taught that we were on the cusp of a new ice age.  

I certainly embrace the idea of climate change (as opposed to global warming) as the phenomenon can create crazy weather, not just warming.   Very anecdotal, I feel like our own weather seems to be leaning towards earlier springs...almost like the seasons are shifting a bit earlier in the year.

I think as a society we should always embrace being kind to the earth.  We should work towards getting off fossil fuels.  We should stop poisoning ourselves, let alone the planet.  But we should be responsible and measured.

When it comes out that we're all ******* doomed by 2030 unless we undertake an impossible global effort...I mean, come on.  How does that engage people?  It doesnt.  It creates conflict because most nations where leadership is cyclical and temporary are not going to bankrupt themselves to prevent what seems like certain absurdity over doomsday sayers.  

And ultimately, we should all screenshot these 2030 headlines so in 2030 when the new doomsday clock is 2050 we can be like yeah right.

In closing, be kind to the earth.  Climate Change is real.  But in the history of the Earth, its been ice-free and ice-covered with no input from humans.  And it will again regardless of what we do.  Its just the way it is.  So lets not go crazy.  

Edited October 10, 2018 by The Unknown Poster

[pigseye]

5 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I have to be honest, I think climate change is real.  I think its not the calamity the climate change chicken littles think it is (I dont mean that as an insult just conveying the people who are really trying to drive panic).

What I saw a lot this year was a particular day with a high temp and lots of social media chatter about climate change.  But it would go like this "wow, today is the 4th hottest May 23rd in history.  Global Warming is real.  We must do something".  But the other 3 higher temps were like 1889, 1912, 1956 etc.  And I'd say Hmmmm

I recall reading that temperatures on Mars were also rising and that this phenomenon was not simply Earth-based.

I can recall being very young in school (think very early 80's and being taught that we were on the cusp of a new ice age.  

I certainly embrace the idea of climate change (as opposed to global warming) as the phenomenon can create crazy weather, not just warming.   Very anecdotal, I feel like our own weather seems to be leaning towards earlier springs...almost like the seasons are shifting a bit earlier in the year.

I think as a society we should always embrace being kind to the earth.  We should work towards getting off fossil fuels.  We should stop poisoning ourselves, let alone the planet.  But we should be responsible and measured.

When it comes out that we're all ******* doomed by 2030 unless we undertake an impossible global effort...I mean, come on.  How does that engage people?  It doesnt.  It creates conflict because most nations where leadership is cyclical and temporary are not going to bankrupt themselves to prevent what seems like certain absurdity over doomsday sayers.  

And ultimately, we should all screenshot these 2030 headlines so in 2030 when the new doomsday clock is 2050 we can be like yeah right.

In closing, be kind to the earth.  Climate Change is real.  But in the history of the Earth, its been ice-free and ice-covered with no input from humans.  And it will again regardless of what we do.  Its just the way it is.  So lets not go crazy.  

Great post and pretty much the way I see it too.

I just get a kick out of certain people who disregard science because it doesn't fall in line with their stance and then turn around and tell people they are anti-science. I don't like the politicization of it which is really all this was ever about, sad but true. 

[The Unknown Poster]

2 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Great post and pretty much the way I see it too.

I just get a kick out of certain people who disregard science because it doesn't fall in line with their stance and then turn around and tell people they are anti-science. I don't like the politicization of it which is really all this was ever about, sad but true. 

Yeah...I mean I dont want to be critical.  There is science that tells us Climate Change is real.  But we also cant take any one year as a sure-fire sign.  Im not a scientist so Im not sure how many years we can take to show us legitimate trends in the over-all history of a planet.  Especially when we know the planet, devoid of industry, has gone through many heating/cooling periods.

And because most of us arent scientists we want to trust the data from scientists. But it also gives those people an edge in manipulating us.  Its like going to the doctor...you trust what he says (and sometimes doctors are wrong).  In the climate change issue, there have been over zealousness and "exaggerated data" so we have to be careful.  Im just not sure what is expected...okay, lets say we're doomed unless we make an impossible global effort.  We're not going to.  So whats next?

[pigseye]

43 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Yeah...I mean I dont want to be critical.  There is science that tells us Climate Change is real.  But we also cant take any one year as a sure-fire sign.  Im not a scientist so Im not sure how many years we can take to show us legitimate trends in the over-all history of a planet.  Especially when we know the planet, devoid of industry, has gone through many heating/cooling periods.

And because most of us arent scientists we want to trust the data from scientists. But it also gives those people an edge in manipulating us.  Its like going to the doctor...you trust what he says (and sometimes doctors are wrong).  In the climate change issue, there have been over zealousness and "exaggerated data" so we have to be careful.  Im just not sure what is expected...okay, lets say we're doomed unless we make an impossible global effort.  We're not going to.  So whats next?

Why are China and India still allowed to build coal plants? If it was such a crisis, why wouldn't they be cracked down upon first. They can afford nuclear weapons and vast militarization but still have to build coal plants? Two grossly over populated countries sucking up resources at an alarming rate yet that is okay. Little old Canada that is carbon neutral has to suck it up for everyone else, something is rotten. 

[The Unknown Poster]

10 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Why are China and India still allowed to build coal plants? If it was such a crisis, why wouldn't they be cracked down upon first. They can afford nuclear weapons and vast militarization but still have to build coal plants? Two grossly over populated countries sucking up resources at an alarming rate yet that is okay. Little old Canada that is carbon neutral has to suck it up for everyone else, something is rotten. 

If climate change lobbyists could get those countries on board, then sure, let's hold hands and move together.  But if we're going to bankrupt ourselves to save the world while other nations burn it to the ground effectively making our efforts inconsequential, that just doesnt work.  Thats always been the problem.  

I thought by now we'd all have little nuclear power packs in our homes and cars and be set for life.

[blue_gold_84]

2 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I think as a society we should always embrace being kind to the earth.  We should work towards getting off fossil fuels.  We should stop poisoning ourselves, let alone the planet.  But we should be responsible and measured.

Well said. I agree 100%.

A carbon tax solves what, exactly? In the grand scheme of things, nothing. Especially when you consider what other countries are doing, ones that are less regulated and significantly more populated.

[Mark F]

5 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Well said. I agree 100%.

A carbon tax solves what, exactly? In the grand scheme of things, nothing. Especially when you consider what other countries are doing, ones that are less regulated and significantly more populated.

Quote

 

 Yale professor William Nordhaus shared the Nobel Prize for economics for his pathbreaking work on carbon pricing. (just the other day)

Nordhaus has been writing for four decades about climate change and the value of using prices to reduce carbon emissions. His research shows that raising prices through, say, a carbon tax, is a far more effective and efficient way to lower carbon emissions than direct government controls on the quantity of emissions through, say, regulatory limits on cars and power plants. Higher prices will encourage firms and consumers to find alternatives to carbon-based products as well as encourage new technologies that will make those substitutes competitive. This has become the mainstream view among economists.

 

Quote

When the time comes for Congress to take the idea of a carbon tax seriously, they’ll look back on the work of Bill Nordhaus beginning in the late 1970s and perhaps wonder: What took us so long?

Forbes

 

[blue_gold_84]

12 minutes ago, Mark F said:

Yale professor William Nordhaus shared the Nobel Prize for economics for his pathbreaking work on carbon pricing. (just the other day)

Nordhaus has been writing for four decades about climate change and the value of using prices to reduce carbon emissions. His research shows that raising prices through, say, a carbon tax, is a far more effective and efficient way to lower carbon emissions than direct government controls on the quantity of emissions through, say, regulatory limits on cars and power plants. Higher prices will encourage firms and consumers to find alternatives to carbon-based products as well as encourage new technologies that will make those substitutes competitive. This has become the mainstream view among economists.

When the time comes for Congress to take the idea of a carbon tax seriously, they’ll look back on the work of Bill Nordhaus beginning in the late 1970s and perhaps wonder: What took us so long?

So, it could work if the majority of countries actually got on board and worked cooperatively...? That seems like a lofty aspiration considering the sociopolitical state both here and around the world. What does that do for Canada and Canadians if a carbon tax is implemented while other countries continue to pollute excessively? It seems like a drop in the bucket when looking at the big (global) picture.

A couple more noteworthy parts from that Forbes article:

Quote

Nordhaus is relatively agnostic about whether the best mechanism is a direct tax on carbon or its cousin, a cap and trade system. But either way, he has argued that nations must raise the price of fossil fuels to protect the climate, a global public good. If not, firms, individuals, and even countries will free-ride, taking the benefits of using fossil fuels without paying for their environmental costs. Unless those global costs—externalities in econo-speak—are built into the price, there is no incentive for individual carbon users to reduce their consumption, and all humanity may suffer the consequences.

One Nordhaus solution: A global climate club. A critical mass of countries would participate by agreeing to an international target carbon price. They could meet that price, say $25 or $30 per ton of CO2, any way they want—with a tax, a cap-and-trade system, or some combination. Countries that refused to join such a pricing system would be punished, perhaps by club members imposing stiff tariffs on all goods imported from non-members. If the cost of refusing membership is high enough, most nations would join the club.

In theory, it sounds feasible. But it relies on a considerable number of moving parts to be realized effectively. Realistically, when looking at the world as a whole, does that seem feasible?

Here's the full article for anyone interested: https://www.forbes.com/sites/howardgleckman/2018/10/10/bill-nordhaus-the-nobel-prize-climate-change-and-carbon-taxes/#5fabc0d96a03

And a link to Nordhaus' research: http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/kyoto_long_2005.pdf

[pigseye]

It would make far more sense to give us incentives to reduce rather than taxing, imo.

It's going to cost me $20G to put solar panels on my roof through my local Hydro supplier and a carbon tax on top of that regardless if I have the panels or not? What a deal, sign me up.

How about just rewarding me instead to reduce my carbon footprint? Why not just give me a discount on my utility bills for using less and other green initiatives?  

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

1 minute ago, pigseye said:

It would make far more sense to give us incentives to reduce rather than taxing, imo.

It's going to cost me $20G to put solar panels on my roof through my local Hydro supplier and a carbon tax on top of that regardless if I have the panels or not? What a deal, sign me up.

How about just rewarding me instead to reduce my carbon footprint? Why not just give me a discount on my utility bills for using less and other green initiatives?  

You produce less carbon, you save on taxes.... I can see the incentive here.

[pigseye]

11 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

You produce less carbon, you save on taxes.... I can see the incentive here.

No I won't. I will use the same amount of fossil fuels whether it's taxed or not because 1) there is no affordable alternative and 2) there is no incentive for me not to. 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

Just now, pigseye said:

No I won't. I will use the same amount of fossil fuels whether it's taxed or not because 1) there is no affordable alternative and 2) there is no incentive for me not to. 

Just because you choose not to use that incentive, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

 

[Jacquie]

 

[The Unknown Poster]

Saw an interesting story on twitter...cant recall where so I cant post it.  But it was quoting a magazine or newspaper from the 70's and saying leading scientists were quite sure we'd all be wearing gas masks in the 80's and half the sun would be blocked out.  Those of us in school in the 70's or early 80's know we were taught that same thing and that it would lead to an ice age.

What will "leading scientists" say 15-30 years from now?  I think that is what people struggle with.  We're talking about micro-fraction of time over the course of the planet's life.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

20 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Saw an interesting story on twitter...cant recall where so I cant post it.  But it was quoting a magazine or newspaper from the 70's and saying leading scientists were quite sure we'd all be wearing gas masks in the 80's and half the sun would be blocked out.  Those of us in school in the 70's or early 80's know we were taught that same thing and that it would lead to an ice age.

What will "leading scientists" say 15-30 years from now?  I think that is what people struggle with.  We're talking about micro-fraction of time over the course of the planet's life.

Acid rain was averted because we made into law limits to curb our sulfur dioxide emissions. 

Air Pollution was curbed (it's still an issue, but it's being dealt with) due to legislative proposals that curbed air pollutants. think of catalytic converter on all cars now. 

Ozone Layer depletion- legislation to curb CFCs.

Lead pollution due to leaded fuel was an epidemic until legislators banned leaded fuel.

 

When legislators listen to science, a lot can be done. Evidence based decision making is a must when making laws to protect our planet. 

Edited October 11, 2018 by wanna-b-fanboy

[blue_gold_84]

There's certainly a ton of fear-mongering as far as this subject goes. The reality is we, as tenants of this planet, can and should do a much better, more responsible job of caring for this planet.

At the end of the day, we'll be the ones to suffer the consequences of whatever happens. The Earth will go on with or without us until our star expands and engulfs the inner planets in some 5 billion years or so.

[The Unknown Poster]

54 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Acid rain was averted because we made into law limits to curb our sulfur dioxide emissions. 

Air Pollution was curbed (it's still an issue, but it's being dealt with) due to legislative proposals that curbed air pollutants. think of catalytic converter on all cars now. 

Ozone Layer depletion- legislation to curb CFCs.

Lead pollution due to leaded fuel was an epidemic until legislators banned leaded fuel.

 

When legislators listen to science, a lot can be done. Evidence based decision making is a must when making laws to protect our planet. 

We averted an ice age?  Man is powerful.  Sorry, dont buy it.  

My issue is the extremist panic.  Of course, let's be good to the Earth.  Nations should commit to that in a reasonable fashion.  Again, at what cost when heavy nations wont comply at all?

In a real world way, is like asking me to use low energy bulbs, low flow toilets, recycle, turn the lights off etc vs installing geo therm and solar panels.  I can do all the former.  I cannot do the latter.  No one is saying dont do anything.  

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

25 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

We averted an ice age?  Man is powerful.  Sorry, dont buy it.  

My issue is the extremist panic.  Of course, let's be good to the Earth.  Nations should commit to that in a reasonable fashion.  Again, at what cost when heavy nations wont comply at all?

In a real world way, is like asking me to use low energy bulbs, low flow toilets, recycle, turn the lights off etc vs installing geo therm and solar panels.  I can do all the former.  I cannot do the latter.  No one is saying dont do anything.  

Ice age?

Check on the amount of peer reviewed papers in support of global cooling and those of global warming during the 70s into the 80s. 

Also, a lot of people arguing in favour of global cooling were using incomplete data. 

Think of today- there are still those that don't believe in global warming... but they are in minority, just like back when people were predicting an ice age.

 

I am all for a cap and trade system with a nnually shrinking finite amount of carbon credits. 

Edited October 11, 2018 by wanna-b-fanboy

[The Unknown Poster]

5 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Ice age?

Check on the amount of peer reviewed papers in support of global cooling and those of global warming during the 70s into the 80s. 

Also, a lot of people arguing in favour of global cooling were using incomplete data. 

Think of today- there are still those that don't believe in global warming... but they are in minority, just like back when people were predicting an ice age.

 

I am all for a cap and trade system with a nnually shrinking finite amount of carbon credits. 

I think people who dont embrace the extremist view are called deniers and are said they dont believe.  That is generally untrue.  

But if society has collapsed due to climate change in 2030, Ill come back here and say you were right and I was wrong.  

[pigseye]

On 2018-10-11 at 10:42 AM, The Unknown Poster said:

I think people who dont embrace the extremist view are called deniers and are said they dont believe.  That is generally untrue.  

But if society has collapsed due to climate change in 2030, Ill come back here and say you were right and I was wrong.  

Well if past history is any indication, I don't think you have much to worry about, here are some of the past predictions:

Ice free arctic by 2013 - Al Gore

Ice free arctic by 2012, 2018 at the latest - James Hanson NASA

Ice free arctic by 2012 - Jay Zwally NASA

Ice free arctic by 2013 not 2050 - John Kerry

Ice free arctic by 2013 - Sierra Club Canada

Ice free arctic by 2013 - Peter Wadhams Cambridge U

Reality: today Arctic 3rd highest sea ice volume in 16 years

[Jacquie]

 

[The Unknown Poster]

On 2018-10-12 at 11:06 AM, pigseye said:

Well if past history is any indication, I don't think you have much to worry about, here are some of the past predictions:

Ice free arctic by 2013 - Al Gore

Ice free arctic by 2012, 2018 at the latest - James Hanson NASA

Ice free arctic by 2012 - Jay Zwally NASA

Ice free arctic by 2013 not 2050 - John Kerry

Ice free arctic by 2013 - Sierra Club Canada

Ice free arctic by 2013 - Peter Wadhams Cambridge U

Reality: today Arctic 3rd highest sea ice volume in 16 years

The crazy thing is, because this is a planet in a solar system and we lack the technology to do much about it, eventually they will be right.  Of course, it could be an ice free arctic in the year 5 million, I dont know.  But since the planet has gone through ice free and snow ball cycles in it's history that had nothing to do with humans, Im not even sure what the sky is falling stuff is all about.  Like, nothing we do, short of developing technology that can effect the sun, will stop the earth from going through its natural warming/cooling cycles.

In short, be kind to the planet.  Doomsday scenarios have always been wrong, as you have pointed out.  So why is it right this time?

PS: saw a report from a former Astronaut that denies human-caused climate change.  Now, some of those astronauts are nuts but I think he's a real scientist.  

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

4 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

The crazy thing is, because this is a planet in a solar system and we lack the technology to do much about it, eventually they will be right.  Of course, it could be an ice free arctic in the year 5 million, I dont know.  But since the planet has gone through ice free and snow ball cycles in it's history that had nothing to do with humans, Im not even sure what the sky is falling stuff is all about.  Like, nothing we do, short of developing technology that can effect the sun, will stop the earth from going through its natural warming/cooling cycles.

You're in you car with windows rolled down on a hot and sunny day, because the AC is broken. For some reason, you decide to roll up the windows. It starts to get warmer inside the car. Feels like a greenhouse in here (see what I did  ). Holy ****, its getting hot in the car. Sweltering heat. you are certain you will die in the car if the temp keeps rising.

Now- you can lament the fact that you lack the technology to effect the sun, or you can roll the windows down. 

 

4 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

In short, be kind to the planet.  Doomsday scenarios have always been wrong, as you have pointed out.  So why is it right this time?

Acid rain was averted because we made into law limits to curb our sulfur dioxide emissions. 

Air Pollution was curbed (it's still an issue, but it's being dealt with) due to legislative proposals that curbed air pollutants. think of catalytic converter on all cars now. 

Ozone Layer depletion- legislation to curb CFCs.

Lead pollution due to leaded fuel was an epidemic until legislators banned leaded fuel.

 

Also- here is one of trump's appointees:

https://www.space.com/40857-trumps-nasa-chief-changed-his-mind-on-climate-change-he-is-a-scientific-hero.html

 

These were all doomsday scenarios at one point and they were right- we just got off our asses and did something about it. Worked out pretty good I would say. 

 

 

 

4 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

PS: saw a report from a former Astronaut that denies human-caused climate change.  Now, some of those astronauts are nuts but I think he's a real scientist.  

Yeah, Harrison Schmitt it was pretty odd. Here is an article about him.

https://www.inverse.com/article/27842-climate-change-denier-nasa-congressional-hearing-harrison-schmitt

Note, many of his assertions have been debunked. 

Edited October 18, 2018 by wanna-b-fanboy

[Wideleft]

I'm just going to drop this here: