T Nation

Paris Climate Conference


#1

I saw the thread in 2013 in regards to climate change and a large derail into farming practices: http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/how_to_combat_anticlimate_change_fools;jsessionid=72BCAF945DB9254559AC869852A4D44B-mcd01.hydra?id=5656037&pageNo=11

Climate Change activists are still predicting the doom, and I keep hearing how we’re on our way to the 2 degree Celsius temperature rise that is the sign of the end. An article like this say that the refugee crisis was caused by climate change: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/07/unsafe-climates

With Bernie claiming that climate change not only caused terrorism but also is our greatest security threat, I thought this article was a fair rebuttal in regards to a lot of the climate change alarmism aimed at fossil fuels: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/11/30/what_should_we_do_about_climate_change_128876.html

I agree with the the article in that it is not entirely man-made and CO2 is not the main driver. It was also the first I’ve heard of the solar radiation correlation.

Any additional thoughts? It doesn’t take much for a climate claim to be made on facebook and go off into heated discussions. I’m trying to learn a bit more about this argument, and facebook is definitely not the place for that.


#2

Regardless of the motives for some of the proposed solutions there may be other positive side effects, namely countries working together for a common goal and pollution. One of the big news stories today was air pollution in China, fixing that requires the same solutions that global warming requires. Assuming climate change is as bad as they say I don’t think we are capable of making drastic enough changes to do anything but slow it down. The little we do will make everyone feel good about progress until there is another 100 years of data. So for the deniers out there you can rest easy knowing there won’t be nearly enough regulations in place to fix this made up problem.


#3

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
So for the deniers out there you can rest easy knowing there won’t be nearly enough regulations in place to fix this made up problem.[/quote]

I’m sure there will be more than enough regulation put in place to bleed us dry though…


#4

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Regardless of the motives for some of the proposed solutions there may be other positive side effects [/quote]

Did you read the article? The whole point was that environmentalists are so focused on decarbinization that it distracts them from real problems that can have positive effects. It is a matter of prioritization. Shouldn’t we be concerned when our government spends money towards efforts that do not benefit us as much as others?

Is that the point of government? To regulate even if it doesn’t make sense? Again, as the article says, “No matter what you believe about future temperatures, making a huge effort to remove CO2 is the wrong place to put your bets. Geo-engineering only makes sense if you are a true believer. If you’re even a mild skeptic of the science, you don’t need to worry about how we’re going to rid the atmosphere of all that extra carbon. It’s a non-issue. We have much bigger real problems to pay attention to… we tend to be driven by sensational stories and imagery, rather than statistics. We should be paying attention to serious problems that are killing millions of people and destroying the environment each year: pollution, indoor smoke, poor water, topsoil erosion, shrimp farming, ocean fishing, rainforest clear-cutting, and much more…It’s sad that climate science and environmentalism have been steered so far off track by people who have a political agenda.”

It’s not an argument against environmentalism, it’s an argument to refocus environmentalism on more important things.


#5

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
So for the deniers out there you can rest easy knowing there won’t be nearly enough regulations in place to fix this made up problem.[/quote]

I’m sure there will be more than enough regulation put in place to bleed us dry though…[/quote]

I think that’s the master plan regarding the man made climate change ruse.


#6

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
So for the deniers out there you can rest easy knowing there won’t be nearly enough regulations in place to fix this made up problem.[/quote]

I’m sure there will be more than enough regulation put in place to bleed us dry though…[/quote]

I think that’s the master plan regarding the man made climate change ruse.[/quote]

They tried to pull off some creepy shit here like rationing 50% of people’s gasoline, it was so vehemently opposed that they didn’t even have a vote. When asked how people would manage the other 50% of their travel needs, politicians didn’t have an answer initially, then they told people to walk, take a bus, or drive an electric car.

It didn’t need a single Republican vote and it still failed abysmally.


#7

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
So for the deniers out there you can rest easy knowing there won’t be nearly enough regulations in place to fix this made up problem.[/quote]

I’m sure there will be more than enough regulation put in place to bleed us dry though…[/quote]

I think that’s the master plan regarding the man made climate change ruse.[/quote]

They tried to pull off some creepy shit here like rationing 50% of people’s gasoline, it was so vehemently opposed that they didn’t even have a vote. When asked how people would manage the other 50% of their travel needs, politicians didn’t have an answer initially, then they told people to walk, take a bus, or drive an electric car.

It didn’t need a single Republican vote and it still failed abysmally.[/quote]

That’s because even in the whacky state of California people are still people. Even the left wingers will put a stop to anything that actually tries to change their lifestyle.

Nice to see.


#8

All I know is that obama keeps trying to correlate climate change with terror. That may be the stupidest thing I have ever heard.
Needless to say, he does not bother to back that utterly ridiculous claim.
So I figure he must mean that the terrorists are pissed off because they are too hot.

Please, tell me nobody other than pittbull believes this horseshit that ‘climate change causes terrorism’? Please. I want to trust that the people I talk to hear are intelligent, this is a deal breaker.

Obama is literally taking a page out of the nazi playbook. Tell a lie often enough with confidence and people will think its true. Note, that’s not calling obama a nazi, just saying he’s using a tactic that the nazis used to get people to support his pet agenda. He’s making a completely stupid claim with no data or facts to back it up and repeating it. Even the Arabs think hes an idiot.
I can imagine a terrorist hears that wad of horseshit and can only be emboldened because the enemy is colossally stupid.


#9

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
So for the deniers out there you can rest easy knowing there won’t be nearly enough regulations in place to fix this made up problem.[/quote]

I’m sure there will be more than enough regulation put in place to bleed us dry though…[/quote]

I think that’s the master plan regarding the man made climate change ruse.[/quote]

They tried to pull off some creepy shit here like rationing 50% of people’s gasoline, it was so vehemently opposed that they didn’t even have a vote. When asked how people would manage the other 50% of their travel needs, politicians didn’t have an answer initially, then they told people to walk, take a bus, or drive an electric car.

It didn’t need a single Republican vote and it still failed abysmally.[/quote]

That’s because even in the whacky state of California people are still people. Even the left wingers will put a stop to anything that actually tries to change their lifestyle.

Nice to see.
[/quote]

Oh yeah, the left are certainly giving with other peoples possessions, but when they have to give up their own, they get conservative real quick.


#10

[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
Did you read the article? The whole point was that environmentalists are so focused on decarbinization that it distracts them from real problems that can have positive effects. It is a matter of prioritization. Shouldn’t we be concerned when our government spends money towards efforts that do not benefit us as much as others?
[/quote]

Everyone is going to have different priorities but there is a big difference between spending to fix a problem vs spending to fix a non-existent problem. Which do you think it is?


#11

The whole “carbon-tax” is nothing more than a ruse to destroy our economy and way of life.


#12

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
Did you read the article? The whole point was that environmentalists are so focused on decarbinization that it distracts them from real problems that can have positive effects. It is a matter of prioritization. Shouldn’t we be concerned when our government spends money towards efforts that do not benefit us as much as others?
[/quote]

Everyone is going to have different priorities but there is a big difference between spending to fix a problem vs spending to fix a non-existent problem. Which do you think it is?[/quote]

As the article said, “No matter what you believe about future temperatures, making a huge effort to remove CO2 is the wrong place to put your bets. Geo-engineering only makes sense if you are a true believer. If you’re even a mild skeptic of the science, you don’t need to worry about how we’re going to rid the atmosphere of all that extra carbon. It’s a non-issue.”

So I would say that spending to stop carbon is not in our government’s best interest. There are other more important things and other ways to help the environment.


#13

[quote]Aggv wrote:
The whole “carbon-tax” is nothing more than a ruse to destroy our economy and way of life. [/quote]

…even further than they already have


#14

?Capitalism increasingly is a discredited system because it is seen as a system that venerates greed above all else… There?s a benefit to climate discussion to name a system that lots of people already have problems with for other reasons. I don?t know why it is so important to save capitalism. It is a pretty battered brand. Just focusing on climate is getting us nowhere. Many, many more
people recognize the need to change our economy. If climate can be our lens to catalyze this economic transformation that so many people need for other even more pressing reasons then that may be a winning combination.?

-Naomi Klein

?You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal… under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It?s just that it will bankrupt them because they?re going to be charged a huge sum for all the greenhouse gas that?s being emitted.?

-Barrack Hussein Obama


#15

^I’m all for creative destruction, but that isn’t what’s happening.


#16

[quote]Drew1411 wrote:
I saw the thread in 2013 in regards to climate change and a large derail into farming practices: http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/how_to_combat_anticlimate_change_fools;jsessionid=72BCAF945DB9254559AC869852A4D44B-mcd01.hydra?id=5656037&pageNo=11

Climate Change activists are still predicting the doom, and I keep hearing how we’re on our way to the 2 degree Celsius temperature rise that is the sign of the end. An article like this say that the refugee crisis was caused by climate change: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/07/unsafe-climates

With Bernie claiming that climate change not only caused terrorism but also is our greatest security threat, I thought this article was a fair rebuttal in regards to a lot of the climate change alarmism aimed at fossil fuels: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/11/30/what_should_we_do_about_climate_change_128876.html

I agree with the the article in that it is not entirely man-made and CO2 is not the main driver. It was also the first I’ve heard of the solar radiation correlation.

Any additional thoughts? It doesn’t take much for a climate claim to be made on facebook and go off into heated discussions. I’m trying to learn a bit more about this argument, and facebook is definitely not the place for that.[/quote]

I have a few:
First, no one, not everybody on earth giving up the use of all energy can save the Earth. Regardless of what we do, the Earth is doomed. The Earth will perish one of 3 ways, it will become like Venus. A lifeless caustic super heated desert. Or it will be swallowed up by the Sun when it hits it’s red giant phase, or it will be jarred loose or burnt up when the Andromeda galaxy collides with the Milky Way. So nobody can ‘save’ the Earth, it’s doom was written into the cards a long time ago.

So I am not going to question the science nor the subsequent contrived panic. This is not an opinion about global warming. It’s simple solutions that have actually been available for a long time. I think all of us can agree we do not want to live in a dirty world and breath nasty air, so we need to concentrate on solutions. Solutions that have existed for a half century or more. We don’t need a big summit to figure that out.

First and foremost, if the worst polluters on Earth, China, Russia, Iran, Central America, and the 3rd world countries that Europe exported their pollution producing industries to do not participate and make a concerted effort to reduce their emissions, simply reducing ours even more amounts to less than a drop in the bucket and is hence a waste of time. So unless these other nations participate, we might as well just hold our course. Why suffer the economic impact if it’s not going to have any effect? That’s just stupid. So first, we need commitments from other nations who pollute a lot, to commit to change or we are wasting our time.

Second, leave the automobile industry alone. They are already ahead of the game having implemented cafe standards set for 2020, by 2016. They nearly killed the industry before with pollution control rules which cost billions of dollars and cost thousands of people their jobs. The auto industry has finally rebounded, it only took 30 years. Leave them and us alone. When they tighten the screws on the auto industry it hurts all of us. Leave them be, we don’t want shitty cares that cost thousands more because of even more government intervention. It’s been tapped to death, it’s not a bottomless pit, the industry can be regulated out of business.

Now for solutions. We need energy and people talk about one power source vs. another but their thoughts are antiquated. Of all the solutions available, we should use all of them, not one over another. They can all be used together and result in near zero emissions and all the electricity we can want. We just need to change the way we think about energy.

First, all the coal fired plants should be replaced with nuclear plants. This was the plan, but the environmentalists in the late 70’s had a fucking fit and the nuclear power initiative was quashed and many plans for power plants were squashed. Do you hate to see the big stacks of pollution coming from coal fired plants? Thank the left and Jimmy Carter for killing them off. We would be totally off of coal by now had the environmental nazis of the late '70’s and early '80’s had been shoved to the side. Now that finally most people agree, there should not be a single coal fired plant in 10 years. Nuclear power should be replacing all of them by 2026.

Next, we need to reduce reliance on the grid. There is no reason that new houses and even older houses cannot be retrofitted with a combination green energy and natural gas powered generators as the backup. The grid is inefficient. The losses in the transfer of energy is needless. I am not say remove the grid, but we can reduce the reliance on it a great deal.
Houses and businesses should be built, for instance, with a combination of solar panels and a natural gas generator. There is no reason for this solution to be affordable, the technology has been around for decades. Of course solar is limited to where sunlight is abundant, so it won’t work everywhere, but it will work in a lot of places. Most dwellings with such a setup shouldn’t need a drop of energy from the grid most of the time. And also, solar panel technology does need to take a step forward. And where sun is not abundant but wind is, wind turbines can be used in conjunction with a natural gas generator, not on a grid, but a per dwelling basis.
Now I agree solar needs to take a step forward, the capture method has not improved that much since it’s inception, the technology is there to capture more sun energy per square inch and a manufacturing process that is less caustic. It has simply not been a priority to make solar panels more efficient, but now is the time to implement newer technology.

On grid central power stations can be use multiples of methods and are ‘green’ and cost effective. The afore mentioned increase in nuclear power is one. Geothermal can be used with great efficacy in places where the Earth’s crust is thin. Hawai’i and the north west could be powered completely by geothermal plants. Refuse powered plants. Refuse is an abundant source of methanol which can be used to run steam generators. And as full of shit as Americans are, we’d have no shortage of refuse. Also, there are abundant caches of methanol stored in Alaska. Rather then just letting it evaporate in to the atmosphere, it can be tapped to run power plants. These are just some solutions to having more than enough electricity generated to power our nation. It would not be difficult to move to near zero emissions electric power in this country.

In terms of conservation. Public lighting, for instance, requires a lot of electricity to run day in and day out. We are so surrounded by it that we barely notice its there. But we can reduce the amount of energy required simply by replacing public lighting with LED powered lights which use a fraction of the energy that a light bulb requires. As lights need to be replaced, we simply replace them with LEDs.

I lied, I am going to talk about cars for a minute. During the Bush Administration he made a big push towards ethanol fuels. This was a move he was highly criticized for, why is beyond me. The emissions from ethanol are far less than gasoline and the internal combustion engine runs just fine on it. In fact, despite the fact that ethanol has less energy per unit it turns out that internal combustion engines designed to run on ethanol produce more horsepower then those running strait gas. The only downside is fuel economy goes down, but it still produces far less environmentally unfriendly emissions. So without having to make drastic lifestyle changes, or the unsatisfactory experience of driving electric, we can drive our internal combustion engines, produce more horsepower, produce less emissions and cars and drivers enjoy the happy relationship they have had for many decades. It’s a wonderful solution that should satisfy both sides of the aisle. Fewer emissions, more power, more demand for cash crops and internal combustion; that’s a win win win win.
As ethanol production becomes more and more efficient, there should be no reason we cannot gradually use ethanol more and more in our cars, reduce emissions and keep the auto industry fresh and enjoyable for many decades to come. Eventually we can give Saudi Arabia the finger and tell them to stick their oil right up their wahhabi loving asses. They can still beat their women and suck on a falafel, they will just be poor while they do it. Hell, telling the ME to go fuck themselves is worth doing it.


#17

[quote]pat wrote:

I have a few:

First and foremost, if the worst polluters on Earth, China, Russia, Iran, Central America, and the 3rd world countries that Europe exported their pollution producing industries to do not participate and make a concerted effort to reduce their emissions, simply reducing ours even more amounts to less than a drop in the bucket and is hence a waste of time. So unless these other nations participate, we might as well just hold our course. Why suffer the economic impact if it’s not going to have any effect? That’s just stupid. So first, we need commitments from other nations who pollute a lot, to commit to change or we are wasting our time. [/quote]

Agreed. With that said, should we limit a 3rd world countries developments in the name of reducing their carbon footprint? I do not think decarbonizing third world countries should be a priority over numerous other issues they face.

of zero emission (I’m assuming you’re talking C02 emissions) technologies, they are VERY far from being able to meet the current demand. I agree nuclear and natural gas are positive solutions, but water, wind and solar still have a ways to go.

I think you have some solid ideas on how to improve the energy industry, and I would be surprised if energy companies haven’t considered them. I think the biggest thing that keeps happening is the solutions you have presented aren’t as cost effective as our current ones. When the time comes that new technologies make them more efficient or lower cost, it’ll be time to change.


#18

Coal is filthy; however without the coal industry, Appalachia would be a welfare state or a deserted region. I dont like it, but it provides jobs to a region which would otherwise have nothing.

Maybe build nuclear plants throughout the region?
Pros. Jobs for Appalachia , isolated nuclear sites, protected within the mountains
Cons. getting that power to population centers (grid inefficiencies)


#19

[quote]Aggv wrote:
Coal is filthy; however without the coal industry, Appalachia would be a welfare state or a deserted region. I dont like it, but it provides jobs to a region which would otherwise have nothing.

Maybe build nuclear plants throughout the region?
Pros. Jobs for Appalachia , isolated nuclear sites, protected within the mountains
Cons. getting that power to population centers (grid inefficiencies) [/quote]

Actually, coal can be a clean source of energy and the technolgy exists to make it so. These suggestions were made in the late '70’s and early '80’s only to be quashed by the environmentalists of that age. I don’t remember what their issue was, but it was dumb.
The technology already exists to gasify coal, at the mining site and pipe the gas form to where ever you wish. The gasified coal has far less emissions and can be considered a clean form. The gas breaks down into methane (CH4) carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen (H2), carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor (H2O) and can be a form of clean energy in this form.
Now because of nuclear technology, I do not think even gasified we need to run power plants off of them. But other industries that require the production of a lot of heat can use gasified coal instead of other fossil fuels.
Coal can also be refined like petroleum and delivers a variety of products including a natural gas substitute.
Coal is a valuable and plentiful energy resource. We don’t have to stop using coal, we just have to stop burning it raw.


#20

[quote]Aggv wrote:
The whole “carbon-tax” is nothing more than a ruse to destroy our economy and way of life. [/quote]

Yeah, it’s just wealth redistribution to people inside their inner circle.