Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Questions about Climate Change, I guess

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Questions about Climate Change, I guess

    Basically: been thinking about the environment. I don't really know how to introduce this, and I'm too lazy atm to try to, so I'm just going to lead with the questions lol

    -The scientific community presents climate change as an extremely threatening and dangerous problem that the world faces. Its urgency has been disputed to some extent, but many people agree that it's a very big problem that will start to affect us fairly recently. In spite of this, it seems like most wealthy, educated people don't try to influence policy in regards to it, nor make a full effort to inform the public about it. Why don't you think more extremely wealthy, influential people spend more of their money and time trying to stop climate change when it's such a pressing issue on the planet and their companies in time?

    -I firmly believe in a person's willingness to work in their own self-interest, but often, it seems like big companies actively work against themselves by polluting the planet to such an extent, because of how they're limiting their economic lifespan (idk, I couldn't think of a better phrase), so why don't these big companies invest in minimizing how much pollution they're emitting in order to guarantee a longer life for their companies.

    -How does the symbiotic relationship between pollution and profit for fossil fuel corporations like BP, Exxon, or Chevron compete with the need for a company to survive in the long run? (i.e Exxon Mobil needing to make money off of gas, which pollutes the planet, but also eventually harms the company itself by contributing to the planet's demise)

    -How long do you think it takes for the more pressing effects of pollution to take place and start to harmfully affect the planet in larger more directly observable ways?

    -How alarmist do you think people are in regards to global warming? Do people overstate the effects of global warming, with there being worse problems that need to be addressed first? Does it even exist at all?

    Sorry if anything is confusing lol, I just sort of spewed out some thoughts I had.

    #2
    Well Trump's Department of Energy just renamed C02 emissions 'molecules of US Freedom,' so...







    ...thats about where we're at right now...
    Last edited by Post-Crisis Shob; June 4th, 2019, 09:09 AM.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by Post-Crisis Shob View Post
      Well Trump's Department of Energy just renamed C02 emissions 'molecules of US Freedom,' so...







      ...thats about where we're at right now...
      but it's what plants crave

      Comment


        #4
        it's really more of the future's problem

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Augustus Caesar View Post
          Basically: been thinking about the environment. I don't really know how to introduce this, and I'm too lazy atm to try to, so I'm just going to lead with the questions lol

          -The scientific community presents climate change as an extremely threatening and dangerous problem that the world faces. Its urgency has been disputed to some extent, but many people agree that it's a very big problem that will start to affect us fairly recently. In spite of this, it seems like most wealthy, educated people don't try to influence policy in regards to it, nor make a full effort to inform the public about it. Why don't you think more extremely wealthy, influential people spend more of their money and time trying to stop climate change when it's such a pressing issue on the planet and their companies in time?

          -I firmly believe in a person's willingness to work in their own self-interest, but often, it seems like big companies actively work against themselves by polluting the planet to such an extent, because of how they're limiting their economic lifespan (idk, I couldn't think of a better phrase), so why don't these big companies invest in minimizing how much pollution they're emitting in order to guarantee a longer life for their companies.

          -How does the symbiotic relationship between pollution and profit for fossil fuel corporations like BP, Exxon, or Chevron compete with the need for a company to survive in the long run? (i.e Exxon Mobil needing to make money off of gas, which pollutes the planet, but also eventually harms the company itself by contributing to the planet's demise)

          -How long do you think it takes for the more pressing effects of pollution to take place and start to harmfully affect the planet in larger more directly observable ways?

          -How alarmist do you think people are in regards to global warming? Do people overstate the effects of global warming, with there being worse problems that need to be addressed first? Does it even exist at all?

          Sorry if anything is confusing lol, I just sort of spewed out some thoughts I had.
          Let's see... Most of your questions can be answered at the same time, so I'm going to start there.

          Almost all extremely wealthy people rely on fossil fuels in one way or another. Whether they made their fortunes in the oil or coal industries directly or if they've invested in companies that make liberal use of them, they still need the industry to do well in order to maintain their fortune. In a way, there is a catch-22 for them. If they address climate change then they run the risk of cutting into their profits. But on the other hand, their fortune as a whole will dwindle if climate change isn't eventually addressed.

          So then, if it's bad for them either way, what do you think they're going to do? They can help address it and quickly damage their profits... Or they can just let it go and make as much money as possible before it's too late. So basically, they don't care about the long-term effects. They figure they'll probably be dead before it hurts them, anyway.

          There are some exceptions, however. Take Elon Musk, he knows the dangers of climate change and does actively fight for alternative energy sources. There are others as well, just not nearly enough.

          Now for the other questions.

          First, the time scale. We're already seeing some pretty detrimental effects from climate change. Droughts and heatwaves are getting worse year after year. The rising ocean temperatures have caused mass bleaching-events in the world's coral reef systems. Rising ocean levels have already put some low-lying coastal regions at major risk for flooding, especially during catastrophic natural events like hurricanes/typhoons.

          Within the next 25 to 50 years, we're looking at severe economic damage from the disruption of life in coastal areas thanks to the rising sea levels.

          For the "warming" part of global warming, though? You're looking at tens of thousands of years before the climate becomes too hot for life on the surface. Maybe even longer, into the hundreds of thousands of years. However, we'll see some significant effects well before then. Desertification of some, once green, regions could begin within the next few centuries. Some areas might become inhospitable to humans within the next century as well. The heatwaves in India during summer already kill hundreds every year, so imagine if the temperatures there were 10 or 15 degrees higher and the summer temps lasted 30 days longer.

          Now... Alarmists... That's a touchy subject. Some degree of alarmism is probably needed. Do you think the anti-science crowd will care if we say "hey! In a few thousand years, life is going to suck!"? They're going to have the same attitude as the businesses. It's not going to affect them, their children, or their grandchildren to any huge extent, so why should they inconvenience themselves? As unfortunate as it is, you need to make it more urgent, but without making it sound "Al Gore" urgent. Focusing on the impending economical effects is a great way to start, I think. Because we are going to see billions of dollars in damages within our lifetimes, even if the world isn't going to spontaneously combust.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Cid View Post

            Let's see... Most of your questions can be answered at the same time, so I'm going to start there.

            Almost all extremely wealthy people rely on fossil fuels in one way or another. Whether they made their fortunes in the oil or coal industries directly or if they've invested in companies that make liberal use of them, they still need the industry to do well in order to maintain their fortune. In a way, there is a catch-22 for them. If they address climate change then they run the risk of cutting into their profits. But on the other hand, their fortune as a whole will dwindle if climate change isn't eventually addressed.

            So then, if it's bad for them either way, what do you think they're going to do? They can help address it and quickly damage their profits... Or they can just let it go and make as much money as possible before it's too late. So basically, they don't care about the long-term effects. They figure they'll probably be dead before it hurts them, anyway.

            There are some exceptions, however. Take Elon Musk, he knows the dangers of climate change and does actively fight for alternative energy sources. There are others as well, just not nearly enough.

            Now for the other questions.

            First, the time scale. We're already seeing some pretty detrimental effects from climate change. Droughts and heatwaves are getting worse year after year. The rising ocean temperatures have caused mass bleaching-events in the world's coral reef systems. Rising ocean levels have already put some low-lying coastal regions at major risk for flooding, especially during catastrophic natural events like hurricanes/typhoons.

            Within the next 25 to 50 years, we're looking at severe economic damage from the disruption of life in coastal areas thanks to the rising sea levels.

            For the "warming" part of global warming, though? You're looking at tens of thousands of years before the climate becomes too hot for life on the surface. Maybe even longer, into the hundreds of thousands of years. However, we'll see some significant effects well before then. Desertification of some, once green, regions could begin within the next few centuries. Some areas might become inhospitable to humans within the next century as well. The heatwaves in India during summer already kill hundreds every year, so imagine if the temperatures there were 10 or 15 degrees higher and the summer temps lasted 30 days longer.

            Now... Alarmists... That's a touchy subject. Some degree of alarmism is probably needed. Do you think the anti-science crowd will care if we say "hey! In a few thousand years, life is going to suck!"? They're going to have the same attitude as the businesses. It's not going to affect them, their children, or their grandchildren to any huge extent, so why should they inconvenience themselves? As unfortunate as it is, you need to make it more urgent, but without making it sound "Al Gore" urgent. Focusing on the impending economical effects is a great way to start, I think. Because we are going to see billions of dollars in damages within our lifetimes, even if the world isn't going to spontaneously combust.
            The solution to this is to tax the economy as much as possible from top to bottom.

            1) Discontinue the "Refundable Child Tax Credit"....we should punish irresponsible parenting behavior, not promote it.
            2) $4 per gallon Carbon Tax on Gasoline.
            3) $30 per ton tax on Coal.
            4) 10% Federal Value Added Tax on everything except medications and orange juice. Starts at 3% and phases in 1% per year for 7 years.
            5) Fat tax on Fatty foods. Tax a penny per gram of fat or gram of sugar in each food.
            6) FAt Tax on fat people. $500 tax on people with BMI 31 every year; plus $100 per point above 31.
            7) 500K per year tax of additional 5%
            8) 1000K per year tax of additional 10%
            9) Phase out Social Security retirement by another 5 years, at half of a year per year for 10 years. If old people worked 5 more years, they'd have enough money for retirement anyway.
            Last edited by Wade; June 9th, 2019, 08:48 AM.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Wade View Post

              The solution to this is to tax the economy as much as possible from top to bottom.

              1) Discontinue the "Refundable Child Tax Credit"....we should punish irresponsible parenting behavior, not promote it.
              2) $4 per gallon Carbon Tax on Gasoline.
              3) $30 per ton tax on Coal.
              4) 10% Federal Value Added Tax on everything except medications and orange juice. Starts at 3% and phases in 1% per year for 7 years.
              5) Fat tax on Fatty foods. Tax a penny per gram of fat or gram of sugar in each food.
              6) FAt Tax on fat people. $500 tax on people with BMI 31 every year; plus $100 per point above 31.
              7) 500K per year tax of additional 5%
              8) 1000K per year tax of additional 10%
              9) Phase out Social Security retirement by another 5 years, at half of a year per year for 10 years. If old people worked 5 more years, they'd have enough money for retirement anyway.
              Oh you and your crazy ideas. Whatever would we do without you, Wade?

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Cid View Post

                Oh you and your crazy ideas. Whatever would we do without you, Wade?
                These ideas would greatly reduce the U.S.' contribution to AGW over the ten year phase in. They are PERFECT.

                Comment


                  #9
                  The Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice is currently on record melt pace and may overcome the 2012 melt curve for all three major metrics: Area, Extent, and Volume

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Wade View Post

                    These ideas would greatly reduce the U.S.' contribution to AGW over the ten year phase in. They are PERFECT.
                    That sounds like a lot of unnecessary extra steps

                    Why not just pray for teh tru CrEaToR to use his magic logos powers to cool the planet

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by Post-Crisis Shob View Post

                      That sounds like a lot of unnecessary extra steps

                      Why not just pray for teh tru CrEaToR to use his magic logos powers to cool the planet
                      The True Creator has a sign planned for you, Atheist, but I've been told not to discuss this with anyone until after it happens.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Wade View Post

                        The True Creator has a sign planned for you, Atheist, but I've been told not to discuss this with anyone until after it happens.
                        he says you weren't supposed to tell me that and you've made him very angry

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Wade View Post

                          These ideas would greatly reduce the U.S.' contribution to AGW over the ten year phase in. They are PERFECT.
                          Sure, they may have some small effects.

                          Know what would be better? Diverging from fossil fuels and increasing spending on renewables.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by Cid View Post

                            Sure, they may have some small effects.

                            Know what would be better? Diverging from fossil fuels and increasing spending on renewables.
                            That's why the Carbon Tax on Coal and Gasoline. You take the money from these taxes and use it to subsided Wind, Solar, and even more Hydro. We need over 2 Trillion in spending on wind turbines in order to get off Coal for the U.S. alone; There isn't enough sunlight in the north-eastern states to replace Coal and Oil, so they need wind turbine farms. Wind turns are about 1/10th as energy dense as solar (in a desert anyway,) and we'd need lots of solar in the desert SW to power California and such.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              I'll maintain here as I've maintained in past threads about healthcare and education that if we want to do a serious Manhattan Project style R&D push into developing new 21st energy infrastructure that moves beyond the old 19th century and 20th century dependency on fossil fuels, its not really a question of "where is the money going to come from?"

                              Its a matter of not making military expansion the top budget item that always gets unchecked funding and can never be reigned in, and that cannibalizes every other item in the budget,

                              And its a matter of taxing the individuals and corporate entities that control 90% of the nation's wealth commensurate with the quantity of wealth they control, rather than giving them subsidies and estate planning loopholes and tax deferred annuities and all that nonsense, and trying to wring as much revenue as you can out of the remaining 10% (i.e. the share of the national wealth owned by the general population, below the financial elites)

                              You do that: you can fund green energy, universal college through pre-k, medicare for all.

                              ...the moneys there...

                              We've just decided we'd rather spend it murderfucking our way across the Middle East and inflating stock portfolios than doing useless things like investing in science and medicine.
                              Last edited by Post-Crisis Shob; June 11th, 2019, 09:56 AM.

                              Comment


                                #16
                                Originally posted by Cid View Post

                                Let's see... Most of your questions can be answered at the same time, so I'm going to start there.

                                Almost all extremely wealthy people rely on fossil fuels in one way or another. Whether they made their fortunes in the oil or coal industries directly or if they've invested in companies that make liberal use of them, they still need the industry to do well in order to maintain their fortune. In a way, there is a catch-22 for them. If they address climate change then they run the risk of cutting into their profits. But on the other hand, their fortune as a whole will dwindle if climate change isn't eventually addressed.

                                So then, if it's bad for them either way, what do you think they're going to do? They can help address it and quickly damage their profits... Or they can just let it go and make as much money as possible before it's too late. So basically, they don't care about the long-term effects. They figure they'll probably be dead before it hurts them, anyway.

                                There are some exceptions, however. Take Elon Musk, he knows the dangers of climate change and does actively fight for alternative energy sources. There are others as well, just not nearly enough.

                                Now for the other questions.

                                First, the time scale. We're already seeing some pretty detrimental effects from climate change. Droughts and heatwaves are getting worse year after year. The rising ocean temperatures have caused mass bleaching-events in the world's coral reef systems. Rising ocean levels have already put some low-lying coastal regions at major risk for flooding, especially during catastrophic natural events like hurricanes/typhoons.

                                Within the next 25 to 50 years, we're looking at severe economic damage from the disruption of life in coastal areas thanks to the rising sea levels.

                                For the "warming" part of global warming, though? You're looking at tens of thousands of years before the climate becomes too hot for life on the surface. Maybe even longer, into the hundreds of thousands of years. However, we'll see some significant effects well before then. Desertification of some, once green, regions could begin within the next few centuries. Some areas might become inhospitable to humans within the next century as well. The heatwaves in India during summer already kill hundreds every year, so imagine if the temperatures there were 10 or 15 degrees higher and the summer temps lasted 30 days longer.

                                Now... Alarmists... That's a touchy subject. Some degree of alarmism is probably needed. Do you think the anti-science crowd will care if we say "hey! In a few thousand years, life is going to suck!"? They're going to have the same attitude as the businesses. It's not going to affect them, their children, or their grandchildren to any huge extent, so why should they inconvenience themselves? As unfortunate as it is, you need to make it more urgent, but without making it sound "Al Gore" urgent. Focusing on the impending economical effects is a great way to start, I think. Because we are going to see billions of dollars in damages within our lifetimes, even if the world isn't going to spontaneously combust.


                                Hm, thanks for the answers.

                                Somebody in this thread mentioned renewable energy. How do you feel about nuclear energy? It seems extremely efficient in the long term, especially if we ever become capable of harnessing the power of nuclear fusion, but there’s also a lot of stigma around it because of the risk of disasters like Fukushima (or Chernobyl on the more extreme side).

                                Comment


                                  #17
                                  Originally posted by Post-Crisis Shob View Post

                                  Its a matter of not making military expansion the top budget item that always gets unchecked funding and can never be reigned in, and that cannibalizes every other item in the budget,

                                  And its a matter of taxing the individuals and corporate entities that control 90% of the nation's wealth commensurate with the quantity of wealth they control, rather than giving them subsidies and estate planning loopholes and tax deferred annuities and all that nonsense, and trying to wring as much revenue as you can out of the remaining 10% (i.e. the share of the national wealth owned by the general population, below the financial elites)

                                  You do that: you can fund green energy, universal college through pre-k, medicare for all.
                                  Yeah, this is probably true, but we both know that the realpolitiks of this country practically guarantee that this won’t happen. Do you really think it’s even feasible for this to happen when the government is currently packed with Republicans in all but one half of a branch? Even beyond the ideological split, the inherent slowness of the American government makes that difficult, although it’s up to you to decide whether that slowness is bad or not.


                                  Comment


                                    #18
                                    Originally posted by Augustus Caesar View Post



                                    Hm, thanks for the answers.

                                    Somebody in this thread mentioned renewable energy. How do you feel about nuclear energy? It seems extremely efficient in the long term, especially if we ever become capable of harnessing the power of nuclear fusion, but there’s also a lot of stigma around it because of the risk of disasters like Fukushima (or Chernobyl on the more extreme side).
                                    Every nuclear disaster was the result of human incompetence. Train your staff better and you won't have any problems.

                                    I support nuclear energy for a short-term stopgap.

                                    Comment


                                      #19
                                      Originally posted by Cid View Post

                                      Every nuclear disaster was the result of human incompetence. Train your staff better and you won't have any problems.

                                      I support nuclear energy for a short-term stopgap.
                                      Ig, but the staff is made up of human beings, not robots. We’re prone to error. All it takes for a town to cease to exist is some dude being an idiot. Why short term instead of long term, though?

                                      I feel like I’m bombarding you with questions, my bad lmao

                                      Comment


                                        #20
                                        Originally posted by Augustus Caesar View Post

                                        Ig, but the staff is made up of human beings, not robots. We’re prone to error. All it takes for a town to cease to exist is some dude being an idiot. Why short term instead of long term, though?

                                        I feel like I’m bombarding you with questions, my bad lmao
                                        You've got to have redundancies in place as well, in the event of humor error. But those are mostly already there. The problem is that the staff knew there were problems in every situation but did nothing to address them. Now, I may have been too eager to put blame on the staff. In all honesty, those catastrophes probably happened because high-end management willingly ignored the issues just to keep costs down. That can't be allowed either. Government probably needs to completely subsidize the nuclear energy sector so that shortcuts aren't taken.

                                        As for why I support it short-term but not long? Well, the nuclear waste problem for one. Burying the waste in the ground is a recipe for disaster. So if we're not going to bottle the waste up and launch it into the sun, we can't just keep using nuclear energy forever. But that's not the only concern, nuclear plants are high-cost to build and require high levels of maintenance to keep safe, thus incurring even more costs. Those costs will eventually get passed on to consumers, especially if the price of nuclear materials increase thanks to the increase in demand. It's just not a great long-term solution. We'd be much better off if we put a ton of money into renewable research, especially solar energy. Solar is undoubtedly the future, we just have to get there first.

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X