The climate insanity of the Trump administration.

[super animator]

And with the right preparing to take over in Brazil opening up the Amazon to commercial logging, which will only accelerate the end of human civilisation. One wonders what does the right have against human life? They are hypocritically anti-abortion but as soon as people are born seem to be committed to ensuring that the environment is not compatible with human life. From poisoning the water, and air with lead, mercury and other byproducts of unregulated industry to blind support of fossil fuels the pro-death/extinction right makes a mockery of any claims of being pro-life.

The political situation in Brazil makes the situation in the US a kids show.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I take a more mathematical and game theory type approach.

Lets say there is a 95% chance you are right, that there is nothing we can do to curb the Earth's environmental effects. Basically, what will happen will happen regardless of what humans do.

Ok...

Now lets think in terms of results:
A) No global warming, everything more or less remains the same for the next 200 years
B) Some global warming and environmental change, slight changes impacting mankind
C) Moderate global warming and environmental change, major changes impacting mankind
D) Major global warming and environmental change, annihilation of mankind

Even presenting these options this way is false...are we considering the science behind it or not?

I'll cut to the chase... From a game theory standpoint, it is in our best interest to do the best that we can in hopes that we are part of the 5% chance that mankind does have a significant impact on the future of this world's environment and/or that we can effect 5% worth of change and that small change can tip the scales in our favor and maybe move us from result C to result B or result B to result A...

No....it would be far better to assume that we're a part of the 95% and start preparing for that.

Or put another way, lets say your daughter has cancer and the doctor says, "There is a 95% chance she is going to die but if we try this harmless procedure, there is a 5% chance she can live". You aren't going to throw your hands up and say, "Meh, she's gonna die anyway no point in trying..." No, you would try.

That's a terrible analogy....

It would be better to say the dr diagnosed your daughter with an immune system problem. You have a 95% chance that she could catch something that ends her life....and a 5% chance she won't. Would you take the preparations to keep diseases away from her? Or just hope she doesn't catch anything?

Well, I submit, similar logic applies in terms of the environment and mankind's role in Global Warming. And to be clear, it is my belief mankind's role in global warming is not significant as compared to other sources (i.e. the sun). However, I believe it is never wrong to do the right thing and the right thing is for us as a species to be much more environmentally friendly as if our lives depend on it, because it does.

Let's imagine that we drastically cut fossil fuels before we have a viable alternative....let's imagine that. Would it stop other nations from consuming them? No. Would it likely damage our economy? Yes.

Our goal here is to be in the best possible position when it all falls apart....because whoever is in the best position, will inevitably weather the problems with the least difficulty.

The only real question is, are you willing to support those things that would put us in the best position? Because I'll tell you now...they aren't pretty. In short, they involve taking as much resources as we can...and sharing very little to none with everyone else.

 

[dgiharris]

Even presenting these options this way is false...are we considering the science behind it or not?.

My argument in terms of the choices has nothing to do with the science. I'm presenting 4 possible results ranging from good to bad. For this argumentative exercise the science is irrelevant.

No....it would be far better to assume that we're a part of the 95% and start preparing for that..

I think we might be diverging here in terms of the starting point of the argument. This is a tangent argument that has merit but would lead to different decision trees... I guess I'll get to that as I address your points.

That's a terrible analogy....

It would be better to say the dr diagnosed your daughter with an immune system problem. You have a 95% chance that she could catch something that ends her life....and a 5% chance she won't. Would you take the preparations to keep diseases away from her? Or just hope she doesn't catch anything?

Ok, this is hopeful. I think we are closer to agreement then you might think.

Absolutely, my analogy is not that good, but building off of what you are saying here, I agree. Make preparations to keep the diseases away from here, absolutely. However, that doesn't mean you can't also simultaneously try to cure her as well...

Let's imagine that we drastically cut fossil fuels before we have a viable alternative....let's imagine that. Would it stop other nations from consuming them? No. Would it likely damage our economy? Yes..

OK, this is good we are getting to the heart of the issue.

From a technological standpoint, we do have viable alternatives. I'm not talking pie in the sky wishful thinking alternatives. No. I'm talking real alternatives in which you can crunch actual numbers and service the entire nation. We have the technological capability and have had the ability to do so probably since the 80s.

What we are lacking quite simply is the will to actual implement a transition plan.

As for the economy. Renewable energy is where the future jobs are. Unfortunately, our Socio-Political-Economic structure is hopelessly addicted to oil. The fat cats don't want to rock the boat and they have done a great job of ensuring the public is ignorant of alternatives or feasibility of implementing alternatives.

I'm not arguing we go cold turkey and cease oil production now all at once... No. What I'm arguing is that we be SMART about doing what we need to do. #1) We seriously need to beef up public transportation. #2) We need to invest in Renewable Energy. #3) We need a stronger push towards hybrid and electric vehicles.

To properly transition in a way that is economically beneficial to us, we need to start now and it will probably take 20 years. We can't keep kicking this can down the road hoping that the problem will magically solve itself.

The US is falling behind the rest of the world in pretty much every category and this is no different. Why do we think that the best way to ensure our future is by clinging to outdated 20th century thinking?

Our goal here is to be in the best possible position when it all falls apart....because whoever is in the best position, will inevitably weather the problems with the least difficulty..

I couldn't agree with you more. So which country would be in the best position when fossil fuels run out and/or the environment impact is so bad that nations the world over are forced to stop fossil fuel consumption.
A) The country that has been transitioning to renewable energy for the past 20 years
or
B) The country that has been hoarding fossil fuels and made no preparations to transition to alternative technologies.

You can't hoard 10 or 20 years worth of oil. You can't snap your fingers and convert your country to renewable energy and alternative methods overnight.

The country that prepares and is smart about moving into the future will be the country that will be in the best possible position when it all falls apart.

The only real question is, are you willing to support those things that would put us in the best position? Because I'll tell you now...they aren't pretty. In short, they involve taking as much resources as we can...and sharing very little to none with everyone else.

If we had the capacity to hoard 20, 30, or 40 years worth of oil then you would be right. But we simply don't. At best and at full capacity I think we only have enough capability to meet US oil / energy demand for 1 or 2 years (without an influx of oil). Just look at how horrifically bad the 70s oil shortages were and those were just "shortages" and not the complete end of fossil fuels.

From a Game Theory and Business standpoint, our best course of action is to figure out a way to get off of oil NOW while we don't have an impeding oil crisis hanging over our heads. Again, Renewable Energy is the future, there are MILLIONS of jobs in renewable energy, it is good for the environment and economy.

 

[Ana the Ist]

My argument in terms of the choices has nothing to do with the science. I'm presenting 4 possible results ranging from good to bad. For this argumentative exercise the science is irrelevant.

I understand, I'm just concerned about framing questions and answers that way.

We got to this point by pretending that there were 2 sides to this issue...and there weren't. There was one side with 90+% of concerned scientists pointing out a problem with a lot of evidence...and 2% of scam artists who were being paid by energy companies to tell everyone everything is ok. We treated it like it was 50/50...that both sides had valid things to say. They didn't though.

I think we might be diverging here in terms of the starting point of the argument. This is a tangent argument that has merit but would lead to different decision trees... I guess I'll get to that as I address your points.

Ok.

Ok, this is hopeful. I think we are closer to agreement then you might think.

Absolutely, my analogy is not that good, but building off of what you are saying here, I agree. Make preparations to keep the diseases away from here, absolutely. However, that doesn't mean you can't also simultaneously try to cure her as well...

Right...but let's consider our efforts a resource. How much are we going to spend on preparation and how much on curing?

OK, this is good we are getting to the heart of the issue.

From a technological standpoint, we do have viable alternatives. I'm not talking pie in the sky wishful thinking alternatives. No. I'm talking real alternatives in which you can crunch actual numbers and service the entire nation. We have the technological capability and have had the ability to do so probably since the 80s.

What we are lacking quite simply is the will to actual implement a transition plan.

As for the economy. Renewable energy is where the future jobs are. Unfortunately, our Socio-Political-Economic structure is hopelessly addicted to oil. The fat cats don't want to rock the boat and they have done a great job of ensuring the public is ignorant of alternatives or feasibility of implementing alternatives.

I'm not arguing we go cold turkey and cease oil production now all at once... No. What I'm arguing is that we be SMART about doing what we need to do. #1) We seriously need to beef up public transportation. #2) We need to invest in Renewable Energy. #3) We need a stronger push towards hybrid and electric vehicles.

To properly transition in a way that is economically beneficial to us, we need to start now and it will probably take 20 years. We can't keep kicking this can down the road hoping that the problem will magically solve itself.

The US is falling behind the rest of the world in pretty much every category and this is no different. Why do we think that the best way to ensure our future is by clinging to outdated 20th century thinking?

You're not entirely wrong here...but it's worth pointing out that we're talking about a lot more than transportation. We're talking about military defense and food production. Oil makes those missiles that travel 1000s of miles fly....it also makes it possible to feed a population this size. These aren't easy things to fix.

I couldn't agree with you more. So which country would be in the best position when fossil fuels run out and/or the environment impact is so bad that nations the world over are forced to stop fossil fuel consumption.
A) The country that has been transitioning to renewable energy for the past 20 years
or
B) The country that has been hoarding fossil fuels and made no preparations to transition to alternative technologies.

You can't hoard 10 or 20 years worth of oil. You can't snap your fingers and convert your country to renewable energy and alternative methods overnight.

I agree.

The country that prepares and is smart about moving into the future will be the country that will be in the best possible position when it all falls apart.


If we had the capacity to hoard 20, 30, or 40 years worth of oil then you would be right. But we simply don't. At best and at full capacity I think we only have enough capability to meet US oil / energy demand for 1 or 2 years (without an influx of oil). Just look at how horrifically bad the 70s oil shortages were and those were just "shortages" and not the complete end of fossil fuels.

From a Game Theory and Business standpoint, our best course of action is to figure out a way to get off of oil NOW while we don't have an impeding oil crisis hanging over our heads. Again, Renewable Energy is the future, there are MILLIONS of jobs in renewable energy, it is good for the environment and economy.

It's not just "getting off oil"....the massive migration of refugees and other peoples isn't a temporary problem. This will only get bigger and bigger. The equator will be hit hardest by climate change...and those populations will leave in the tens if not hundreds of millions.

If we're going to get off oil...we also have to severely restrict our population size. Oil is what allowed it to grow so large....we'll need to shut our doors to millions or a billion people and leave them to ruin. What's more, is as these places fall apart...there will be little reason not to grab what resources remain and control them. If we let the Russias and Chinas of the world grab them...then we'll be in their pockets.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

The Trump administration knows the planet is going to boil. It doesn't care | Bill McKibben
Trump administration admits that the temperatures will increase by an average 4c by end of century leading to a literal hell on earth. And what are they going to do to address it? Nothing Indeed knowing the consequences they are instead deliberately Removing environmental regulations, encouraging the burning of fossil fuels and fiddling whilst the world burns.

Yes, Trump and some Conservatives don't care. We have to hope stronger, smarter countries deal with this. Until we get someone smart enough to care as president.

 

[loveofourlord]

Yes, Trump and some Conservatives don't care. We have to hope stronger, smarter countries deal with this. Until we get someone smart enough to care as president.

we have the smart enough to care people, just...well they are democrats that often lack a back bone...which pains me as one, but it be nice if the politicians in the democratic party had half the back bone of the republicans to stand up for what they believe in.

 

[dgiharris]

.....It's not just "getting off oil"....the massive migration of refugees and other peoples isn't a temporary problem. This will only get bigger and bigger. The equator will be hit hardest by climate change...and those populations will leave in the tens if not hundreds of millions.

If we're going to get off oil...we also have to severely restrict our population size. Oil is what allowed it to grow so large....we'll need to shut our doors to millions or a billion people and leave them to ruin. What's more, is as these places fall apart...there will be little reason not to grab what resources remain and control them. If we let the Russias and Chinas of the world grab them...then we'll be in their pockets.

I think we need to better define what getting off oil means. From my perspective, it would not apply to our military.

As far as our society is concern, oil is not a limiting factor. As long as we have viable alternatives, there is no need to limit population size due to an oil shortage. We have the technological capability to move off of oil as a society in a way that does not hurt us, we just lack the will to do it. Truth be told, if we did make the move it would actually strengthen us.

Necessity is the mother of all inventions, if we seriously moved off of oil that necessity would lead to a host of innovation and increased efficiencies as well as economic opportunities. We'd invent entire new industries and we'd create a ton of domestic jobs. And if we got really good at it, then we could export products and services related to these efficiencies...

I think you have the notion that oil is "so good" that getting off of it is a negative and will be to our detriment. I would argue that is not necessarily true and that if we honestly pursue oil free technologies it could/would strengthen us longterm and be "better" than oil based tech.

Ideally, I'd like to see our nation commit to a 20 year plan to get 90% of our society and infrastructure off of oil and fossil fuels.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think we need to better define what getting off oil means. From my perspective, it would not apply to our military.

As far as our society is concern, oil is not a limiting factor. As long as we have viable alternatives, there is no need to limit population size due to an oil shortage. We have the technological capability to move off of oil as a society in a way that does not hurt us, we just lack the will to do it. Truth be told, if we did make the move it would actually strengthen us.

Fossil fuels may be dirtier...but they're also more abundant, cheaper, and far more efficient. This article should clear things up...

<p>Why Alternative Energies Won’t Replace Oil and Gas Anytime Soon<br> </p>

That was written in 2011. Unless there's been some major discoveries in the past 7 years I haven't heard about...then fossil fuels are still the best and cheapest fuels around. They aren't going anywhere till they're gone...

From the article...

"Carbon dioxide emissions will continue rising because hundreds of millions of people in places like Vietnam, Malaysia, and South Korea—and, of course, China and India—are transitioning to a modern lifestyle, complete with cars, TVs, and other manufactured goods. As they do so, they are using more energy. Specifically, they are using more hydrocarbons—coal, oil, and natural gas. And while lots of idealistic environmentalists and some policymakers argue that we should quit using carbon-based fuels and move to a global economy powered by nothing but renewables, the hard reality is that hydrocarbons are here to stay."

And...

"A recent analysis by the Energy Information Administration estimates that wind-generated electricity from onshore wind turbines costs $97 per megawatt-hour. That’s about 50 percent more than the same amount of electricity generated by natural gas, which the EIA estimates costs $63. Offshore wind is even more expensive, coming in at $243 per megawatt hour. The least-expensive form of solar-generated electricity—the type generated by photovoltaic panels—costs $210, or more than three times as much as the juice produced by burning natural gas."

Even the best most cost efficient solar panels cost over 3 times as much to heat a home as natural gas. So please, unless you've got something groundbreaking to share....don't sell me some story about how we "have the technology"....we don't. As of now, nothing is as efficient or cheap or abundant as fossil fuels.

Necessity is the mother of all inventions, if we seriously moved off of oil that necessity would lead to a host of innovation and increased efficiencies as well as economic opportunities. We'd invent entire new industries and we'd create a ton of domestic jobs. And if we got really good at it, then we could export products and services related to these efficiencies...

I think you have the notion that oil is "so good" that getting off of it is a negative and will be to our detriment. I would argue that is not necessarily true and that if we honestly pursue oil free technologies it could/would strengthen us longterm and be "better" than oil based tech.

Ideally, I'd like to see our nation commit to a 20 year plan to get 90% of our society and infrastructure off of oil and fossil fuels.

How? It's the only thing that feeds us. The entire agricultural sector is oil dependent...and I'm not just talking about tractors and plows and combines. The irrigation systems use a lot of oil, the fertalizers use a lot of oil, the pesticides use a lot of oil. The shipping isn't just about trucks....it's about those packages that seal off your food to keep it fresh. Wanna guess what those are made out of? Oil.

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2005-04-01/why-our-food-so-dependent-oil/

Try to realize that if we were to stop using oil tomorrow, we'd all be starving in a month.

The fact is climate change is happening...and its happening soon. Oil, natural gas, fossil fuels in general are so efficient and cheap that we cannot hope to replace them before they run out...there's nothing comparable.

Moreover, entire industries like agriculture are intertwined with oil. The idea that we can just change this over a couple of decades without major problems is a pipe dream. A fantasy. Climate change is already affecting agriculture....and our agricultural system is the only thing that allows 7.5 billion people to live on the planet.

Do the math....we aren't going to grow and prosper....not unless we start taking a more ruthless approach to foreign policy and seriously limit population growth. That may be 4, 5, or 6 decades from now....but it's coming and it's what we should prepare for.

 

[Rubiks]

Will trying to (rapidly) reverse global warming also cause harm to the environment?

 

[Goonie]

Will trying to (rapidly) reverse global warming also cause harm to the environment?

There really is no reversing climate change, suggested solutions such as releasing sulphur dioxide into the upper atmosphere carry there own major downsides. What there is is trying to mitigate, slow it down, stop digging ourselves a hole.

And what are we doing instead? Electing right wing governments that are hell bent on destroying the environment for profit. Look at Brazil where the expected new govt will be opening up the Amazon to commercial logging, banning environmental groups, and have stated that the Amazon tribes must abandon there way of life or vanish.

 

[Rubiks]

There really is no reversing climate change, suggested solutions such as releasing sulphur dioxide into the upper atmosphere carry there own major downsides. What there is is trying to mitigate, slow it down, stop digging ourselves a hole.

And what are we doing instead? Electing right wing governments that are hell bent on destroying the environment for profit. Look at Brazil where the expected new govt will be opening up the Amazon to commercial logging, banning environmental groups, and have stated that the Amazon tribes must abandon there way of life or vanish.

"those dern libtards don't know ya'll can't make money and protect the environment at the same time!"

 

[dgiharris]

Even the best most cost efficient solar panels cost over 3 times as much to heat a home as natural gas. So please, unless you've got something groundbreaking to share....don't sell me some story about how we "have the technology"....we don't. As of now, nothing is as efficient or cheap or abundant as fossil fuels. .

You are confusing economics with technology in regards to this issue.

Firstly, we do have the technology. Renewable energy being more expensive than traditional fossil fuels does not validate the argument that we do NOT have the technology. No. What validates that argument is "if" renewable energy technology is PROHIBITIVELY expensive. And it is not.

In terms of cost, there is a direct correlation between volume and cost, increase the volume / manufacturing of something will scale down the cost...

Secondly, there are some interesting and viable prospects that will be able to meet demand and compare to fossil fuels, namely "Tidal Power" renewable energy.

https://phys.org/news/2016-09-wave-produced-electricity-online-hawaii.html

there are a few hurdles to overcome, but again, my argument is not to shut off fossil fuels tomorrow, or even in the next decade. That is not my argument. My argument is that we need to plan to get off of them over the next few decades. Gotta be honest, not sure why doesn't seem feasible to you given the technological development you've witnessed over the past 40 years... You'd think I was talking about living on Mars in 40 years by the way you are arguing against it.

You can literally look at technology today and see the examples of what I'm talking about.
Electric generators and motors? check!
Solar Panels? Check!
Tidal Power? In its infancy but Check!
Ability to make hydrogen from water? Check!
Electric cars and trucks? Check!
Hydro and geothermal power? Check!

there are more items on the check list but they are all yellow or green for a go. So this inability to see my argument as feasible is something I don't understand. If I were arguing for tomorrow or even 10 years from now sure. But to argue that we can't nor shouldn't do it over the course of the next 40 or so years is very myopic and short sighted.

As a whole, the US and current leadership is displaying a serious inability to plan and boldly go into the future. It is economic suicide in this technological day and age to clench tightly onto past modes and methods of doing things. We are at the point of exponential technological development. This has very serious ramifications. What this means is that if you are not on that leading edge, you will not only get left behind, but the gap between you and the leading edge can easily become too wide for you to ever overcome and catch up.

 

[super animator]

Look at Brazil where the expected new govt will be opening up the Amazon to commercial logging, banning environmental groups, and have stated that the Amazon tribes must abandon there way of life or vanish.

Apparently you don't know the political situation in brazil.

 

[Goonie]

Apparently you don't know the political situation in brazil.

Yes Bolsarano is the favourite in the second round of elections, and opening the Amazon fully to commercial exploitation, banning environmental groups, abandoning environmental regulations are part of his manifesto. And he is on record praising military dictatorship and enthusive praise of the murderous regime that used to rule Brazil. And he is on record stating that under his rule the Amazon tribes will abandon their culture or vanish.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You are confusing economics with technology in regards to this issue.

Firstly, we do have the technology. Renewable energy being more expensive than traditional fossil fuels does not validate the argument that we do NOT have the technology. No. What validates that argument is "if" renewable energy technology is PROHIBITIVELY expensive. And it is not.

In terms of cost, there is a direct correlation between volume and cost, increase the volume / manufacturing of something will scale down the cost...

Secondly, there are some interesting and viable prospects that will be able to meet demand and compare to fossil fuels, namely "Tidal Power" renewable energy.

https://phys.org/news/2016-09-wave-produced-electricity-online-hawaii.html

there are a few hurdles to overcome, but again, my argument is not to shut off fossil fuels tomorrow, or even in the next decade. That is not my argument. My argument is that we need to plan to get off of them over the next few decades. Gotta be honest, not sure why doesn't seem feasible to you given the technological development you've witnessed over the past 40 years... You'd think I was talking about living on Mars in 40 years by the way you are arguing against it.

You can literally look at technology today and see the examples of what I'm talking about.
Electric generators and motors? check!
Solar Panels? Check!
Tidal Power? In its infancy but Check!
Ability to make hydrogen from water? Check!
Electric cars and trucks? Check!
Hydro and geothermal power? Check!

there are more items on the check list but they are all yellow or green for a go. So this inability to see my argument as feasible is something I don't understand. If I were arguing for tomorrow or even 10 years from now sure. But to argue that we can't nor shouldn't do it over the course of the next 40 or so years is very myopic and short sighted.

As a whole, the US and current leadership is displaying a serious inability to plan and boldly go into the future. It is economic suicide in this technological day and age to clench tightly onto past modes and methods of doing things. We are at the point of exponential technological development. This has very serious ramifications. What this means is that if you are not on that leading edge, you will not only get left behind, but the gap between you and the leading edge can easily become too wide for you to ever overcome and catch up.

I'm not confusing anything...and I'm guessing you didn't read the articles. Let's imagine for a moment that a business adopted these energy resources and got off oil....what would happen?

They would almost immediately go out of business, right? Their oil using competitors will be able to deliver the same product for cheaper, faster, and more efficiently.

Your problem is your ignoring the economics of it entirely. Nobody will get off oil till a cheaper alternative appears...at the very least.

 

[klutedavid]

The Trump administration knows the planet is going to boil. It doesn't care | Bill McKibben
Trump administration admits that the temperatures will increase by an average 4c by end of century leading to a literal hell on earth. And what are they going to do to address it? Nothing Indeed knowing the consequences they are instead deliberately Removing environmental regulations, encouraging the burning of fossil fuels and fiddling whilst the world burns.

What matters more to the voters, the present or the future?

 

[super animator]

Yes Bolsarano is the favourite in the second round of elections, and opening the Amazon fully to commercial exploitation, banning environmental groups, abandoning environmental regulations are part of his manifesto. And he is on record praising military dictatorship and enthusive praise of the murderous regime that used to rule Brazil. And he is on record stating that under his rule the Amazon tribes will abandon their culture or vanish.

I am not referring to the running candidates when I say that you don't understand the political situation.
Apparently you don't know the murder rates for Brazil.
Recovered from its worst recession in history.
Brazil own scandal named "Operation Car Wash" is so bad that the leading prosecutors said that this is much bigger then Watergate.
Shall I go on?

 

[Goonie]

I am not referring to the running candidates when I say that you don't understand the political situation.
Apparently you don't know the murder rates for Brazil.
Recovered from its worst recession in history.
Brazil own scandal named "Operation Car Wash" is so bad that the leading prosecutors said that this is much bigger then Watergate.
Shall I go on?

And voting in someone who promises to destroy the environment, commit genocide, and makes matters exponentially worse will help how? Its the bullet to the brain solution to a headache.

 

[super animator]

And voting in someone who promises to destroy the environment, commit genocide, and makes matters exponentially worse will help how? Its the bullet to the brain solution to a headache.

You act like that there are candidates out there, that are consider to be better according to the people of Brazil.
Spoiler alert: No, there isn't any. They have their own set of major problems. (Seriously did you do any research?)

I am not surprised if they resort to back to a dictatorship.

 

[Goonie]

You act like that there are candidates out there, that are consider to be better according to the people of Brazil.
Spoiler alert: No, there isn't any. They have their own set of major problems. (Seriously did you do any research?)

I am not surprised if they resort to back to a dictatorship.

Seriously, why are are you speaking out in support of a genocidal authoritarian? It’s the equivalent of saying “my house is on fire, let’s add gasoline”