Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Dave
Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2018 - 03:54pm PT
|
^^^ 100% this.
Hell, my wife get's pissed when I tell her I don't want any more kids.
Just think if I used climate change as the primary reason...
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2018 - 04:13pm PT
|
We will never agree.
Yeah solar panels take a little to produce ,they are on less than 10% of American roofs. Yes they take raw materials to produce ,all of them completely recyclable.
You know what is on 100% of roofs in America?
Roofing material ,close to 60% of it FF ‘s ,the balance metal or earthen.
We need roofs to keep the water out,most are not recyclable,this alone could keep the FF industry running ,by its own.
We need energy as well,but ,your oil party has made it political.
Never mind that roofing has no return and several costs before it’s demise.
We need to keep the rain out.
We do not need energy independence,hence the oil party.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2018 - 04:18pm PT
|
Weak sauce ,My ass, I am in the renewable business.
Stockholders posing as Capitalist,as long as it all works for them.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2018 - 04:29pm PT
|
There.
|
|
Dave
Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2018 - 04:32pm PT
|
Where?
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2018 - 07:48pm PT
|
deniya wrote: "Part of the reason nothing is getting done is that libs and leftists take perfectly good, valid science and “hysterify” it toward their political ends. Just one example, 2017 has come and gone—and Himalayan glaciers haven’t disappeared as once predicted. Predicted not by scientists, but by political bodies and dupes more interested in power than solutions to a very serious problem."
Yet another example of DENIAL.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2018 - 07:57pm PT
|
Madbolter found on some denier blog a reference to one study that supports his biases, and went on to make the wildly wrong claim that solar in the USA "isn't near break even."
In the first place that study was for Germany and Switzerland, which have less solar available than most of the USA.
More refutation of that study.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516307066
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2018 - 08:16pm PT
|
As far as nuclear,
it's the power industry that is running away from it due to its never ending high costs, despite 50 years of subsidies.
San Onofre was closed early in 2012-2013 due to the incompetence of SCE, and their wish to switch to other sources. This was a $10 billion plant that they refused to pay $600 million to fix the steam generator.
And now PG&E has aborted the plan to extend Diablo Canyon to 2045, and now will close it in 2024-2025.
So the power industry choice is to close operational nuclear plants, which is the opposite of thinking that building new ones is a good idea.
https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-diablo-nukes-20160623-snap-story.html
|
|
Lituya
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2018 - 08:35pm PT
|
Yet another example of DENIAL.
Splater, since you know full and well I agree with the majority of climate scientists, and that something needs to be done, I'm left to assume I failed some religious purity test of yours. The truth is, your orthodoxy is part of what's standing in the way of real solutions. (Plus the fact you're likely a bonafide nutjob.)
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2018 - 08:40pm PT
|
Mad, it is a convenient excuse to decline to do something just because there's 1 million, or even just one hypocrite out there...and those you agree with politically are outrageously hypocritical at times too. So just drop that irrelevant bit.
This forum had a huge thread for a while with much debating of climate change science and debunking of every criticism until a few of the deniers finally admitted that the problem they had with the science was that they didn't like some proposed remedial actions and thought they were politically motivated. That's a way different method of evaluating scientific validity than I learned in school and on the job.
It's odd to be debating the advisability of nuclear power when we have a regime that can't even support closing coal plants in favor of natural gas, which right there is a carbon emissions benefit. And which reverses vehicle mileage standards that are beneficial in every possible way including foreign trade. (The rest of the world is not so short-sighted, or stupid whichever it is, as to fail to see the virtue in higher mileage vehicles. If manufacturing and selling high-value products overseas is desirable, an incentive to make those products more competitive ought to be a good idea, no?)
Right away that reliability, or a Plan B in case of failure, is better assured, and that the subject of waste transport and disposal is adequately addressed, you'd see a lot of support (from myself included) for nuclear power generation. This is exactly the problem with petroleum-based transportation fuels: never dealt with the waste (CO2 etc).
I'm very skeptical that a solar panel fails to generate the energy it takes to fabricate it over a (very long) service lifetime, but if you have a link to a genuinely objective analysis, post it up and let's see. Same with wind. But I get the point, there's no totally free lunch, let's just see what it costs.
Hydropower is no solution, there aren't really good sites for new dams even if we wanted to go that way. Some of the ones we have are going to run into water supply problems pretty soon.
Where I'm going with this is, there's no easy remedy. But as long as the discussion of solutions is only political sniping, we are indeed totally screwed and just need to lament the demise of the planet as we know it. I think it's a lot better idea to all acknowledge there's a serious problem and start implementing some solutions, even though they'll initially be very imperfect and will only really help in combination, not just one holy grail type idea which doesn't exist.
Unfortunately, greed and power trips are making it awfully difficult even to get to step 1. That's really bad.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2018 - 09:47pm PT
|
By the way your ad hominen insults only illustrate your own shortcomings.
"what's standing in the way of real solutions."
Go ahead and propose something feasible then. You keep claiming to want to do something about global warming and GHGs, but most of your posts on this thread are just sniping about boogiemen from the left and your strawmen silliness. Glaciers all over the world are shrinking as predicted. Why try to claim otherwise if you are on the "same page?"
As written, your last suggestion to control GHGs does not mention doing much until 2040-2050, and even then has no limit on air travel (a luxury).
We need to start major policy changes now. We have already put off most action for ~40 years. Delaying even further will result in twice as much warming, which means perhaps 10 times the impact to society. Putting a rising price on carbon (revenue neutral) is by far the simplest incentive. It automatically gets people to immediately start using less fossil fuels for everything, including home heat, cars, gasoline based hobbies, airplanes, etc. You like to complain about government ("a carbon tax simply puts govt into bed with producers" according to you). I have no idea what that means. A revenue neutral carbon fee does not grow the government. However, mandates will. Phased in mandates can help but they have many costs and inefficiencies and often result in government bureaucracy to micromanage, gaming, loopholes, waste and abuse. A ban on new internal combustion engines does not reduce the existing ~120 million of them on the road, and in fact just makes the old ones more valuable. A tax on fuel lets people make their own choices.
Lituya Mountain climber
...no coal plants operating after 2050 and, say, no new internal combustion engines produced after 2040 (except aviation turbines), the market would find a way to make it happen. Volvo is already on the path.
Of course, govt would have to quickly permit the alternatives--new dams, nuclear plants, wind, solar, tidal projects. Replacing dense carbon energy won't be free. ...
TLP, the reason I excepted aviation is that there is no conceived alternative for the status quo re power and speed. Nitrogen-based fertilizer is another big one with huge inputs that can't be found elsewhere.
Splater climber Grey Matter
Nov 3, 2018 - 08:51pm PT
Unless you disincentive it, people will keep the old ones running for another 70 years, same as Cuba.
Lituya Mountain climber
The disincentive would likely be baked into the macro-economics of a petrol industry now a shadow of its former self. Gasoline would be expensive and scarce. IC engine cars would be a hobby.
Splater
What happened to your silly claims that expensive gas is a bad thing?
If it gets expensive due to an RNCF you say it's bad.
But if it's expensive due to these vague shadow bakings and magical hobbys, that is a good thing.
Lituya
Again, for your benefit, Splater, a carbon tax simply puts govt into bed with producers. Not sure why you're having so much difficulty with this. In any event, not sure why you're sniping; we're basically on the same side re thread topic, right?
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2018 - 10:04pm PT
|
Lituya, I think we agree on a lot of points. The bit about the California gas pipeline is a red herring. It's trying to turn every aspect of the whole discussion into totally black or white. In a place where it's feasible to go without fossil fuels due to abundant solar and wind, that's a good idea. Somewhere that's not so feasible, at least switching off coal is sensible. Not to mention the other air quality issues, and the problem of ash (another one of those waste problems not resolved in the slightest at present, it's just accumulating in spots vulnerable to flooding, inadequate containment, etc.), and the huge environmental and human damages from the coal mining itself.
My take is, doing anything effective to reduce the rate of climate change is going to take at least a little of just about everything that anyone is suggesting. And none of it is without consequences, like a lot of things. Just do the environmental and financial accounting of the real situation and start to figure out a few things to do better rather than worse. Not trying to snipe at anyone, it's time to get pragmatic.
|
|
Lituya
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2018 - 10:06pm PT
|
Go ahead and propose something feasible then. You keep claiming to want to do something about global warming and GHGs, but most of your posts on this thread are just sniping about boogiemen from the left and your strawmen silliness. Glaciers all over the world are shrinking as predicted. Why try to claim otherwise if you are on the "same page?"
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=2899333&msg=3120637#msg3120637
Splater,
You need to do more research before you spout.
|
|
Lituya
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2018 - 10:10pm PT
|
TLP,
If only it was, in fact, a red herring. In addition to natural gas, so-called environmental groups have litigated hundreds, if not thousands of clean and/or alternative energy projects from wind turbines to nuclear to hydro to solar. Surely you know this is true. How are we going to turn off the coal and oil with these legal obstacles standing in the way? A grand bargain will, at some point, have to be made.
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2018 - 12:37pm PT
|
Part of the reason nothing is getting done is that libs and leftists take perfectly good, valid science and “hysterify” it toward their political ends. Just one example, 2017 has come and gone—and Himalayan glaciers haven’t disappeared as once predicted. Predicted not by scientists, but by political bodies and dupes more interested in power than solutions to a very serious problem.
Yea, glaciers all around the world are getting bigger, not shrinking. The amount of summer sea ice in the arctic has never been bigger.
Where are all those bigger hurricanes that the climate hysterics kept promising?
And isn't it really funny that they kept saying California fire season would keep getting worse? Rolling on the floor laughing my head off over that one. I'm really surprised the chicken little climate conspiracy nuts still have the gall to show their faces.
As Trump says:
SAD.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!