Green New Deal 26

[rb1957]

recognise too that China has a different government style than the US.

it's a pity that the US is so against building nukes (as China is) which are probably the best short term energy solution. Renewables have a niche to fill, but they won't create a total solution. Renewables are being built with govt subsidies, which can/will change on a whim (we recently lost our govt incentive for hybrid/electric cars because of a govt change).

the questions I'd pose to "believers" would be "what level of CO2 do you want ?" (maybe 260ppm) then "why?" (the level before industrialisation") and "what has to happen to get there?". And therein is the problem. Nothing (short of killing about 80-90% of the population, and returning to subsistence a life style) will get us back to that level, and maybe we shouldn't. And then, for all we know, some other natural mechanism may take over and defeat our "best" efforts to control the environment.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[JoshPlumSE]

I think we need to create a new type of environmentalism..... Aimed at reducing carbon emissions. Pro Nuclear power, pro hydro, anti-coal. Wind and Solar are fine ideas, but have real limits to when and where they can be used.

What ppm would we want as our goals? I'd settle for keeping future CO2 emissions where we are now as short term goal. Then maybe 350 for a long term goal.... approximately where we were at in 1995.

 

[bones206]

Bones, grow up. If you are going to participate in any discussion check your facts first, unless you really do not care if they are correct or not.

I did clarify that I meant per capita and provided a link to support my statement. I also conceded that there are other ways to look at it, which I thought was mature and reasonable on my part.

The earth does not care about per capita. It cares about tons, and it is not as you stated. This is why alarmists have low credibility.

Have you considered the time factor? How many more decades has the US been producing consistently high levels of pollution compared to the developing world? The earth doesn't reset the effects of pollution every year and wipe the slate clean. Where does the US rank if you consider cumulative contribution over time?

the questions I'd pose to "believers" would be "what level of CO2 do you want ?" (maybe 260ppm) then "why?" (the level before industrialisation") and "what has to happen to get there?".

It's up to government to set the agenda and goals based on best available climate science. It's up to engineers and the private sector to figure out how to get from point A to point B. It's up to government to form policies and allocate funds and resources to the appropriate places to give us the best chance of succeeding. That's why I think the Green New Deal is a good start. It's a statement of purpose with a defined goal and timeline. So in my mind it is fulfilling government's role.

Yes I'm a "believer", but I'm a structural engineer, so my ideas on energy are pretty broad and basic. But conceptually I think our best shot is to maximize distributed renewable energy like solar, wind, geothermal. We already have these technologies available, we just need an externality (the government) to tip the economic scale to stimulate action. In parallel to the build-up of distributed generation, develop reliable energy storage and modernize distribution technologies. This would minimize demand on large power plants and build up a middle class industry of small scale renewable system designers and installers. I don't think any of this is that far out of reach. We have the technologies, expertise and funds to do it if we chose to.

Unlike Josh, I think more taxes are politically unviable, so I'd rather see massive tax credits that make these systems dirt cheap for most people. Pay for the tax credits by reducing reallocations in the budget or simply add on to the national debt. The debt is so astronomically high already that it's essentially meaningless at this point. It's especially meaningless if the climate is going to be unlivable in a generation or two. You might say I'm being ridiculous, but it's the exact same approach as the Republican tax reform bill.

One easy thing we could do is just stop subsidizing the fossil power industry.

 

[rb1957]

you tip your hand with statements like "if the climate is going to be unlivable in a generation or two".

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[SuperSalad]

bones206,
You keep saying these things like

if the climate is going to be unlivable in a generation or two

and

a potential extinction-level threat

At what point in time do you think human nature will make an abrupt change from what it has historically been and we will no longer be able to adapt to a changing climate? Humans live and thrive in just about every available climate on Earth. Barring a global cataclysm, which we can neither prepare for nor prevent, I just cannot see how the climate could change so drastically that we would not survive it as a species.

Let's just say for discussion's sake that we were to face extinction for any reason. So what? Extinctions happen. The Earth continues on it's merry way. We won't be around to rue it and no one aside from our dogs will miss us.

I am all for a sustainable existence and minimizing our negative impact on the world, but let's not forget that the number one attribute that has made humans into the species we are today is our ability to adapt whether behaviorally or physically.

Andrew H.

http://www.mototribology.com

 

[bones206]

I was just making a point about the relative importance of the national debt to the hardships predicted to be imposed by major climate change. In 2075 your coastal cities are underwater and your crops can't produce enough to feed the population, I don't think you will look back at 2019 people and say boy I'm glad they minded the budget instead of taking on debt to try to stop this from happening. Please don't take me so literally.

 

[bones206]

Again, just making a contextual framework for an argument. Not saying the contextual framework (unlivable climate, extinction) is definitely going to happen, but these are the potential outcomes that are being considered so that's why I put things in that perspective.

I'd prefer to try to prevent a rise in global hardship if it's within our power. If it's beyond our control, than yea it is what it is and we'll have to adapt. Preventative adaptation is different from reactive adaptation. We are capable of preventative adaptation, but apparently less capable of agreeing on the need to adapt. I'm choosing to go with the hypothesis that we need to adapt because 1) I'd rather be on the safe side and 2) I believe the corrective actions are beneficial to our quality of life whether or not a threat actually exists.

 

[SuperSalad]

I would rather not try to prevent anything from happening since we have absolutely no basis or historical evidence to imply our actions would not makes things worse. Going ahead with reducing our impact, adapting to the changes already in motion, and letting the Earth fix itself over time is the safest and most logical option. The Earth has a proven track history of balancing forces that become to powerful to sustain.

Humans aren't exactly great at avoiding unintended consequences and I think ANYTHING we would try with the intent of "fixing" the climate would make the planet, and us, suffer worse than if we minded our own business. It is pure hubris to think the climate even should be "fixed" so it is ideal for humans.

Andrew H.

http://www.mototribology.com

 

[bones206]

So you are providing a context of geologic timescale, in which case I totally agree that the earth is gonna do its thing and humanity is just small potatoes and the grand scheme of the universe. My concerns are in the context of the next several generations of my descendents and the prospects of their quality of life and ultimately survival. And we aren’t really minding our own business are we? We have been actively affecting the climate so we have to actively stop doing that.

 

[NormPeterson]

If I could only determine that this resolution was more about a seed of environmental engineering wrapped up in some social engineering chaff rather than the other way around . . .

I don't agree that extremism (in any direction) is a good position for governmental bodies to operate from.


Norm

 

[theCorkster]

An old negotiation perspective which is true is you can't get what you don't ask for. So why not ask for it all and celebrate when you get some? AOC fronting the Green New Deal scheme is just a promotional phenomena. The the attention should be placed on who fronted here and why, but as our main stream press has now said, we just present, we don't investigate. Sell the sizzle....

 

[Maui]

Sell the sizzle...and the idiocy that underlies it all.

 

[struct_eeyore]

And I though the experiments with socialism in the 20th century concluded that, no, socialism is not a good idea, and no, it wont deliver what it promises...