Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Energy, Environment, and Policy' started by Raffy.Roma, Feb 3, 2013.
Nope -- but that is me. And I am not a trumper.
You understand wrong.
Predictions are that the coastlines will submerge displacing hundreds of millions in the US alone, if hurricanes do not displace them first.
There will be mass starvation, mass biological extinctions, loss of the oceans as a precious resource, and epidemics.
The most uncertainty is when, but well within the lifespan of a 'civilization.'
Not to mention what severe weather changes might do to our crops.
That's going to be the first killer that starts the climate panic. Most countries are not food self sufficient. Even countries like England and Russia import a substantial percentage of calories.
It is the displacement of populations by famines, and the other unnatural climate change-powered disasters, that the Pentagon views as the threats to international security and stability that are likely to translate into serious global conflicts. For a taste of things to come, look at the impact on the EU of a few million migrants from Syria. Scale up by a factor of ten or a hundred in a context with serious global food shortages caused by climate change and the prospects for serious global conflicts become very real.
Exactly. But if the government decides to prioritize military power over PV, you have to acknowledge that is a policy decision, not a question for science.
No, I do not agree. In order to be a valid exercise of public policy such a decision would have to be based on facts and truth, not lies and disinformation. At no point have the public been informed that our continuing, largely unnecessary, consumption of fossil fuels is expected to result in a breakdown of social order and war, or given the choice between renewable energy, prosperity and peace, on the one hand, or greater fossil fuel revenues, climate change and war on the other. Only if that choice were to be clearly and honestly articulated and a decision made on that basis could such a choice be viewed as a valid exercise of public policy.
Regardless of whether you think the basis is 'valid', it's still POLICY.
I lose confidence in scientists who seem to struggle with rather simple logic concepts when their ideology is involved. No better than "intelligent design" advocates.
Science tells us it's warmer, why, and maybe even educates our expectation of how warm it will be tomorrow. Science does not tell us what to do. It's a simple concept.
Science tells us we have a problem (climate change); tells us the cause of the problem (fossil fuels); and tells us what to do to stop the problem (stop burning fossil fuels).
What else do you need to know?
The "ideology" of the politicians (greed) keeps them from accepting the science. They don't want to understand the simple message from the scientists.
While ideology keeps some from accepting the science, you can certainly make the decision that transitioning off fossil fuels may not be worth the cost. A warming planet does have some advantages - longer growing season for instance.
The totality of effects of warming are a guess. Famine and food shortage etc are not written in stone.
Displacing 100s of millions in the US alone? Wait a second there are only 320 million or so. A rational policy might be to grow the inside of the country over the next few 100s of years. Displacement could be long term population shifts. I live at 500 feet with 3 million other people. I have no worries of going under water anytime soon.
Making the claim that the coastlines are going to dramatically change in our lifetime is a bit of hyperbole. The NOAA is predicting .3 to 2.5 meter rise over 100 years. I have a oceanfront house with a floor at 26 ft. Might still be usable in 100 years at the high estimate.
I'm 46. I'm not planning on retiring to Florida but I suspect NY will be ok in my later years. A retreating coastline will probably happen gradually enough to gradually move populations (in the US at least).
Hurricanes - sure. They suck. Warm water powers them. But it is really hard to see a trend in the last 70 years. Of the 5 worst for NC, they have hit in expected distribution over 70 years. Hazel was arguably the worst given the lower population at the time - 1954. Damage wasn't number one but force probably was. None of the 5 worst were since 2000. So no trend over a 70 year old's lifetime. More houses on the coastline and higher dollar houses will gradually up the damage but population displacements - not common.
$100 trillion is a good amount of money. Money buys things. Like food, clothing, shelter for the world's poor. So ignoring the wealth that fossil fuels have given the world is ignoring the greatest single form of wealth in world history.
That being said, I have a good size solar array and we have only EV's in our house. The earlier we transition, the better in my opinion. But that is a policy decision.
I don't think you can actually. First, even ignoring climate change, fossil fuels have other external costs, from health effects to resource wars. Second, sustainable energy use will be cheaper in the long run, so I'm not sure what "cost" you are referring to.
Not if that longer season means drought or flooding. Plus the potential for less healthy plants and less nutritious food from excessive CO2 as described previously in this thread.
I can't seem to get the quoting part correct. My responses to your points are embedded in the quote of your original. And good for you! You are part of the solution. I also have on one BEV and solar.
How about the Holocaust, and the collectivization of agriculture by Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot. All were policies, and all were profoundly wrong.
Closer to the current time, at what point do lies, fraud and bribery vitiate the validity of the "POLICY"?
Validity is the very essence of policy, if it is to be respected and enforceable under the rule of law.
Unlike politicians and other paid propagandists of the fossil fuel industry, scientists are acting on the science and the facts when speaking about climate change and have tended to err on the side of caution.
You are correct that science, strictly speaking, does not tell us what to do, but it does tell us that:
Human burning of fossil fuels is releasing massive amounts of GHG emissions which are accumulating in the atmosphere, are dangerously destabilizing the global climate, and will thereby destabilize human civilization over the coming decades.
The constantly declining costs of solar, wind, storage, electric vehicles and other alternative energy technologies means that they could replace all fossil fuels over the coming decades at a lower total cost.
From which, the logical and reasonable course of action is readily apparent.
How to Convince Someone When Facts Fail
Thanks. Quite so! Hard lesson to remember.
To be clear, I meant that it was pertinent to the thread topic in general, not the current sub-conversation necessarily.
Full article at:
Antarctic sea ice hits record low early data shows
They haven't learned their lesson on credibility yet.
Scientists Criticize 'Hottest Year on Record' Claim as Hype | RealClearInvestigations
Unfortunately the general public doesn't deal well with subtleties. The claims are within range of what the data shows and the move to sustainable carbon neutral energy use is imperative regardless of yearly fluctuations.