Climate Change: Why aren't more people concerned about it?

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 1881 - 1900 of total 2200 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

TLP

climber

Nov 24, 2018 - 01:00pm PT

A grand bargain will, at some point, have to be made.

Total agreement on that, more like a few grand ones and 1000 smaller ones. I also agree that it is folly to challenge every energy project because there's some type of environmental damage from it and wish people would stop doing it. You are absolutely right, waaay too much of that has happened. But I can't help it that there are people I agree with in some respects who are fools in others, and I don't rely on that to do nothing until every other person on the planet is carbon neutral.

I don't think it's hysteria to say that climate change is happening, quickly, and is going to cost us and everyone else a lot of money. The estimates of timeline for loss of glaciers were calculated as best as could be done at the time, who cares what the exact date is, and whether that's loss of 50% of the ice, or 80%, or all of it. It's going to be a huge problem for 1 billion people. It would make sense to try to do something about it, and it will take a while to turn the battleship.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Nov 24, 2018 - 03:13pm PT

Part of the reason why nothing gets done, nor will get done, is exemplified by this very thread.

I don't give a rat's left testicle HOW we get off of fossil fuels. If you favor solar, go for it. Do you have solar on YOUR house yet? But I've been saying for decades, long before the climate change fervor, that the US must get off of fossil fuels, because it's a matter of national security. Just one of countless implications is: Cut Israel loose and get out of the Middle East entirely. Etc., etc.

I seriously don't care HOW it's done, but it should have been done LONG before climate change was on anybody's radar.

Problem is US! WE can't do anything but bicker, and while we're bickering, the mega-corps win, then win again.

My attitude is this: NOTHING that is non-combustion is off the table. France has made nuclear work and in cost-effective fashion. Solar is getting more efficient by the year. Maybe this very year it's tipped into positive efficiency in the USA (although "positive efficiency" is a pretty narrow band of installations, depending on specific geography). Hydro is not off the table for me. NOTHING that can fit into a non-fossil-fuel puzzle is off the table. And that's because what matters to me, and has for decades, is to GET OFF FOSSIL FUEL to the greatest extent possible as soon as possible!

But we do need to focus on SOLUTIONS rather than believe that solutions will emerge if you punish people enough. And when a thread like this amounts to yet more bickering about what is better or best in the way of solutions, I just get tired of it.

And why I focus on LIBERAL hypocrisy is that it is the libs that have taken this up as a cause, so it is LIBS that should be MOST interested in finding common ground, building bridges, seeking compromises, and having a "nothing is off the table" attitude. Yet this very thread reveals that libs are MUCH more interested in "being right" than in working together with "deniers" to achieve genuine solutions.

How can you work together with "deniers"? Simple. Find and then magnify that common ground that can motivate change apart from agreement about cause or even problem! There are countless reasons that even "deniers" can get behind the goal of getting off of fossil fuels. That's the discussion to have.

But no. Being "right" trumps all other considerations. Nit-pick this or that study. Box and package it as coming from a "denier site," even though it's solid research and makes a point that's been widely known for decades. Then just dismiss it (and the messenger) while completely missing the overarching point and STILL not offering any solution other than, "Tax the hell out of 'em until they stop."

BS!

Meanwhile, the mega-corps have a "business as usual" perspective, and you will NEVER succeed in punishing THEM. Proposed punishments always "trickle down" to the people least able to pay. For those of you that lived in the Inland Empire of SoCal, just remember Kaiser Steel BITD.

This is not about "finding the ONE best solution and then piling onto it." Success means jumping NOW on ALL the non-fossil solutions and working them together, because collectively a bit of this and a bit of that is better than not being able to "settle on" what is "ultimately best." You are NEVER going to get that level of agreement!

Can't cope with a dam? BS! How about a few more alongside other approaches? Don't like nuclear? BS! Let's put a bunch of modern reactors up, get 'em online asap, and cut coal AND natural gas dependency that much while we move forward on multiple fronts simultaneously.

I'm saying that if your priority is driven by a sense of CRISIS, like you libs CLAIM it is, then you had better start making bunches of compromises RIGHT NOW, and embrace everybody from whatever side of the aisle that can be motivated by ANY means to support dramatic change NOW. IF your prophesies come true, then it will be hollow comfort to then say, "See! I was right! Damn those denier conservatives!"

To me the hypocrisy is like Jim Carrey bagging on "conservatives" for "doing nothing" about the homeless problem, when that prick is wealthy enough to make a HUGE dent in the problem in, say, SF if he only would. Oprah could put a huge dent in the problem nationally.

But mega-bucks libs do NOT put their money where their mouth is. Instead, they have the "I got mine, now tax the middle class for the cause I believe in." Carrey could give away 90% of his money (both accumulated and ongoing), and he would still live a lavish lifestyle. Oprah could give away 99%. So, wealthy libs, IF one of your hobby horses really is the homeless problem, then POUR your OWN money into it before you so glibly proposing raising taxes yet more.

And that attitude is directly related to the climate change issue.

Look, it's one thing for a denier to say, "I'm not convinced, so, of course I'm going to eat as much steak as I want as often as I want." It's another thing for a lib, who CLAIMS to be motivated by science, who CLAIMS to care about the scientific studies regarding the causes of climate change, and who can't deny that the meat industry is a significant contributor, and yet that same lib won't even consider becoming a vegetarian. Like right now. Again and again it comes down to putting your money (and diet) where your mouth is.

If you smoke and/or eat meat, then you are polluting our world in significant and entirely unnecessary ways! You could dump those polluting practices tomorrow. But when you want cap and trade and other punitive measures BEFORE you have done EVERYTHING that you can personally do, you are a hypocrite, and I have no sympathy for your (supposed) position. And if you can't motivate ME, then you've got a bigger problem than you realize, because I've been motivated on the GHG issue LONG before global warming was a thing.

What I see is that most libs, just like Carrey, want "something done," but it shouldn't affect them. So, the "solutions" always involve affecting somebody else's lifestyle and pocketbook.

And, yes, the final hypocrisy that must be mentioned, is that LIBERALS cherry-pick their "science" in ways that I don't see as flagrantly from conservatives (although I pretty much hate both sides of the aisle).

You don't get to rest on "consensus" regarding climate change and simultaneously defy "consensus" regarding gender. You lose more credibility than you seem to realize to try to embrace both. So, you open the door WIDE for "deniers" of BOTH of your "takes" on "science," to say, "They are clearly they are not intellectually honest about gender. So, this climate bit is probably akin to that."

YOU are "the side" that wants sweeping changes. So, it falls to YOU to provide a road-map forward that makes intuitive sense, even for those who question "your science." And that road-map CAN be produced, and it CAN be compelling. This thread ain't an example of it!

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Nov 24, 2018 - 03:21pm PT

But we do need to focus on SOLUTIONS rather than believe that solutions will emerge if you punish people enough. And when a thread like this amounts to yet more bickering about what is better or best in the way of solutions, I just get tired of it.

And why I focus on LIBERAL hypocrisy is that it is the libs that have taken this up as a cause, so it is LIBS that should be MOST interested in finding common ground, building bridges, seeking compromises, and having a "nothing is off the table" attitude.

oh boy... you really know how to set the table for cooperation and consensus and bipartisan progress, don't you.

wilbeer

Mountain climber

Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,

Nov 24, 2018 - 04:01pm PT

How true Ed.

Comes on here berating liberals for doing anything,like we profess this is the answer ,then walks it back.

What you have said about hypocrisy and wealthy libs doing this or that does not apply to all here or anywhere. Could we generalize a bit more.

Sounds like you did some research on solar. Good. Now quit badmouthing a part of mine and a lot of others livelihood.

You may be right about eating meat in general. I had my first steak of the year Thanksgiving.

It was grass fed beef ,raised four miles away from my house,I eat less than a burger a month from the same farm.

Not a vegetarian,but ,buy local.

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Nov 24, 2018 - 04:35pm PT

California meets greenhouse gas reduction goal years early

California greenhouse gas emissions fell below 1990 levels, meeting an early target years ahead of schedule and putting the state well on its way toward reaching long-term goals to fight climate change, officials said Wednesday...

California plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 40% by 2030

"...California’s emissions cap-and-trade program, launched in 2013, is one of the major policies the state is using to lower its greenhouse gas emissions. In 2015, CARB recommended tightening the program, which would reduce the amount of available emissions credits. Other recommendations from CARB include new regulations that would affect petroleum refinery emissions and double energy efficiency savings by 2030, for example.

Under the current cap-and-trade program, affected emissions sources include electric generators, industrial facilities, and oil and natural gas distributors. Companies in the compliance program have the option to either purchase allowances or directly reduce their emissions. Companies also have the option to finance carbon offset credits, which are earned under a separate program for voluntary projects that lower overall GHG emissions..."

Splater

climber

Grey Matter

Nov 24, 2018 - 04:42pm PT

As usual the false rants of MB prove who is interested in nit picking in order to stop reasonable policy progress. First the kook rage against rich Democrats which makes no sense in a capitalist society. And now you fail to see the obvious, that it is Right wingers have elected federal politicians to block almost all climate progress for the last 30 years. And now the right has elected the most anti-science president ever.
It is ludicrous to blame the Democrats.

Splater

climber

Grey Matter

Nov 24, 2018 - 04:53pm PT

Did you know that John Anderson, a conservative from the midwest, was one of the first to propose a revenue neutral gas tax, way back in 1980?

"Anderson also was criticized for his “50-50 plan.” With America’s oil crisis of the 1970s ongoing, Anderson proposed a 50-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax to discourage consumption. The gas tax would be more than offset by his proposed 50% cut in Social Security taxes, he argued. But audiences tended to hear the plan’s first part—the tax—and shut him out before he could pitch the second."

https://www.latimes.com/local/obituaries/la-me-john-anderson-2050-story.html

wilbeer

Mountain climber

Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,

Nov 24, 2018 - 07:09pm PT

“It is ludicrous to blame the Democrats “.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Nov 25, 2018 - 10:35am PT

As usual the false rants of MB prove who is interested in nit picking in order to stop reasonable policy progress.

Nothing false or rant about what I wrote. You LIBS are the ones that believe it's CRISIS to not "do something NOW," so YOU are the ones who should be most reasonable, most willing to make concessions, most willing to even embrace the lunacy of deniers if that can help you find common ground (like a mutual desire to get off of fossil fuels).

But, like Ed just above, we see the same responses again and again: Better to be "right" in your own minds than to ACTUALLY embrace existing solutions that would work in both the short and long term.

And if your "reasonable policy progress" means punitive measures, then you should not be a SHRED surprised when you find that more than half of this nation correctly wants no part of your "policy progress."

We want energy solutions, not trickle-down punishments that will have no effect on the ones actually resisting sweeping changes in energy policy.

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Nov 25, 2018 - 11:18am PT

We want energy solutions, not trickle-down punishments that will have no effect on the ones actually resisting sweeping changes in energy policy.

energy solutions is a big idea, and these "solutions" require considerable investment.

Hydro-electric power uses a resource, the flow of water in river systems, which competes directly with other resources, water use, ecology maintenance, etc. The government is in the position to not only regulate these resources uses, but also to provide funding, both directly for the projects and to indemnify the utility operating the facilities to exploit the resource. And the government is able to do this with the revenues it raises, which mean that "the people" have a say in what is done.

In California, as you know, there are those who advocate for developing more reservoirs for exploiting agriculture, here the citizens of California are asked to support expensive infrastructure benefitting a largely private industry, agribusiness, which does not have the means to undertake those projects privately.

As for nuclear energy, the public demand for "safe" energy drives both the regulatory environment and the role of the government to insure the public is "made whole" in the event of an accident.

The attempt to correctly price the cost of production of GHGs is one way to affect the nature of energy production. It might sound punitive, but it is akin to regulations prohibiting you from disposing of human waste improperly, you can't just dump it on your backyard, or in a leach field created in an urban/suburban area, or directly into a body of water wherever you are (at least at the moment).

How you could you argue that the consequence of doing so should not be punitive is difficult to fathom.

Increasing the cost of GHG generating energy makes other energy production economical, albeit with an increase in energy costs. But the current cost of using GHG generating energy does not include the cost of climate change, which it is directly responsible for.

As far as GHGs, it is the realization that the atmosphere is a limited resource (at least as far as disposing exhaust gases from human energy production) that should require the "correct" costing of doing so.

In so doing, the costs of those things that result in higher GHG emission will cost more, and you can choose to spend the money or not, seeking lower cost alternatives. Driving an SUV is possible, as long as you pay the cost of doing so. There is no "inalienable" right that protects the operating costs. Same for beef... and any number of other modern conveniences.

Lituya

Mountain climber

Nov 25, 2018 - 11:27am PT

MB, trying to deprogram cult is never easy and, here, probably a wasted effort. As you've seen, they won't even engage in a civil manner with people who agree with them meta level.

Liberals are usually pretty squishy, but when it comes to climate change they seem to become startlingly doctrinaire. This topic, and the zealotry associated with it, has led me to conclude that modern liberalism is barely distinguishable from a religious cult.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Nov 25, 2018 - 11:37am PT

Ed, nobody is denying the need for governments (at all levels) to be fundamentally involved. Your post was lots of words without saying anything perspicuous.

The obvious problem with punitive measures is that the offenders are not the ones doing the paying. Instead, these measures penalize the people least able to afford it. The average person has NO choice about where their wall-power comes from, and the vast majority cannot afford their own solar system (about $25k for my house). Moreover, only a quite small swath of the US enjoys enough reliable sun to make solar an even marginally cost-effect solution on an individual basis.

Wind? Yeah, good luck with that. Almost nobody can legally erect their own wind-turbine towers. And, even more than solar, most people do not live in a region with enough reliable wind for a turbine to even begin to be effective.

So, yeah, go ahead and penalize all you want, but all that's going to happen is that the average person is going to "pay more at the pump" for something that THEY did not decide, have little/no power to decide now, and that emerges primarily from policy decisions in Washington.

This whole thing is going to be decided in Washington, and it's going to change "your" way if and only if Congresscritters are TOLD in no uncertain terms that the USA must be essentially off of fossil fuel within a decade. That can be done, and, if the present science is to be believed, MUST be done even sooner than that. But it's going to take an almost entirely united front on the part of voters, which means a level of consensus that this thread (and even your own post) indicates is not possible.

So, back to your regularly-scheduled and fruitless hand-wringing.

Lituya

Mountain climber

Nov 25, 2018 - 11:41am PT

The attempt to correctly price the cost of production of GHGs is one way to affect the nature of energy production. It might sound punitive, but it is akin to regulations prohibiting you from disposing of human waste improperly, you can't just dump it on your backyard, or in a leach field created in an urban/suburban area, or directly into a body of water wherever you are (at least at the moment).

This is a bit of a straw-man. The topic is already addressed and regulations accepted by society going as far back as Smith's smoke nuisance thesis. What you're talking about are new fees and regulations that are only tangentially related to energy production.

Ironically, my suggestion that government mandate a complete and orderly phase-out of IC engines and coal is probably to the left of you. Creating an artificial pricing scheme with government at the helm is not, in my view, a prescription for a cure. Proof, take a look at your state government's taxes on cigarettes--a product that kills 480,000 Americans every year, and ought to be banned outright. Why hasn't it been? Because government likes the revenue.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Nov 25, 2018 - 11:41am PT

This topic, and the zealotry associated with it, has led me to conclude that modern liberalism is barely distinguishable from a religious cult.

I more and more suspect that you are correct. That troubles me, because I really try to avoid boxing and packaging people and their beliefs.

But the liberal cherry-picking of science has become striking. As you rightly noted upstream, the whole gender bit is an epic credibility hit!

I say, tongue in cheek: Hey, libs, just IDENTIFY as being part of a nation that is off of fossil fuels, and that MAKES it reality, evidence to the contrary be damned. Libs should be the FIRST to say, "Hey, how you IDENTIFY is irrelevant if it doesn't cohere with the empirical facts."

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Nov 25, 2018 - 12:28pm PT

Ironically, my suggestion that government mandate a complete and orderly phase-out of IC engines and coal is probably to the left of you.

no, I agree with both of those things... I don't know how you do it in an "orderly" fashion, it is a hugely disruptive technology change.

as far as "hand wringing" my last 7 years of research have been in exploring a major possible alternative energy source, fusion, what have you been doing? I'm not sure why the criticism of my idea, that is, the atmosphere is finite and changing is already costing us... that is not tangential, that is for real, and so costing that in the use of GHG use doesn't seem at all unreasonable.

I also think that the representation of using the atmosphere as a sewer is apt.

There is a cost to all of us, and it is possible that without good policies the less economically fortunate will be disproportionally hit... but that is a policy issue and perhaps represents an event greater divergence in political opinion as to how to address it. What will happen to this same population as the climate changes?

Toker Villain

Big Wall climber

Toquerville, Utah

Nov 25, 2018 - 12:39pm PT

So Litulya, cigarettes outlawed?

You believe in the nanny state?

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Nov 25, 2018 - 02:03pm PT

no, I agree with both of those things... I don't know how you do it in an "orderly" fashion, it is a hugely disruptive technology change.

Yeah, I guess that it's beyond the purview of science to give us political philosophy or even mere political insights. Point taken, and related to one of your points to follow next....

as far as "hand wringing" my last 7 years of research have been in exploring a major possible alternative energy source, fusion, what have you been doing?

LOL.... to my point just above. Science doesn't have all (or even most of) the answers, nor can it. See, political philosophy does matter, so that we proceed in principled fashion rather than just reactively.

Ed, you are in a unique position that does not reflect the "doing" of the average person on ANY level. So, even you should admit what a cheap shot your last paragraph was. And cheap shots just like that are why "we the people" cannot get together against the mega-corps that rule us. Keep it up, then you can have all the "superior high ground" of "told you so" when the SHTF and you had not enough allies with which to "do something."

Personally, I'm a life-long vegetarian, which actually is quite "disruptive" in its own right. Are YOU? Since you are not, why not? See, it's NOT a cheap shot to INSIST that libs put their own lifestyle where their mouths are.

Your fusion research may SOMEDAY provide benefits, probably not. But meanwhile, you CAN and should become a vegetarian and thereby do YOUR personal part to put the meat industry out of business, thereby slowing and then halting rain forest destruction, among many other things. YOU can do that right now, as can EVERY lib. And if we all did (healthier, cheaper, and better), we would PERSONALLY have a significant effect WHILE we work on other things as well. So, can I count on YOU to become a vegetarian immediately? If not, why not?

Is YOUR home solar? If not, why not? In short, I'll turn that cheap shot question of yours back at you. What PRACTICALY, NOW things are YOU doing to put your money where your mouth is? And, BTW, if you even think it: owning a Prius is a JOKE as long as we're fueling it with COAL!

I'm not sure why the criticism of my idea, that is, the atmosphere is finite and changing is already costing us... that is not tangential, that is for real, and so costing that in the use of GHG use doesn't seem at all unreasonable.

Well, because you've said a mouthful, much of which is crap!

Nobody disputes that the atmosphere is finite. But regarding the "cost," NOBODY has EVER produced anything resembling a "cost model" to which you blithely refer as if it's established fact (I've looked at about a dozen attempts). And you've never responded in the slightest to the FACT that, like Kaiser Steel BITD, the polluters have always just passed the costs along to consumers.

I also think that the representation of using the atmosphere as a sewer is apt.

Multiple reasons why not. A short and non-exhaustive list:

* Dumping sewage is NOT a necessity, and there are countless and readily available alternatives. By stark contrast, and as you admit in your own post, changing out energy sources is a HUGE and very disruptive process. A coal-fired electric company CAN legitimately say, "We don't have a good alternative at this moment. Help us get onto a good alternative, and we'll happily do it. Until then, we have NO alternative but to 'dump,' as you say."

* Dumping sewage is RIDICULOUSLY irresponsible, when it's trivial to create/maintain water reclamation plants. A company that dumps sewage is literally flipping society the middle finger. By stark contrast, coal-fired electricity is NOT flipping the middle finger at anybody. So, punishment is appropriate in the first case but not the latter.

* Dumping sewage is local and done in defiance of governmental policy. By stark contrast, coal-burning electrical plants are mainstream and the result OF governmental policy. Why penalize entire industries for doing what WE told them to do and are not financing them to do otherwise?

* Finally, but not exhaustively, it is RIDICULOUS to penalize industries that have NO options but to pass along the penalties to the very people that have the least options and the least capacity to pay. This is not like Kaiser Steel that CHOOSES to keep polluting, pay the fines, raise the cost of steel to compensate, and intentionally keeps doing business as usual because it feels NO pain of the fines and the end-consumer doesn't feel the pain of the fines (distributed as they are by the time an additional penny-per-pound of steel is realized). Cap and Trade, by contrast, is a mode of penalization that PRETENDS that costs can be understood and fairly assessed, and where the "fines" will indeed and immediately be FELT by consumers who have no good options.

There is a cost to all of us,

And neither you nor anybody else has ANY, and I mean ANY, idea what that is! As just one example, you libs love to congregate in huge cities along the coastlines, so you see "costs" everywhere you look. But the rest of us see your "costs" as just consequences of your lifestyle choices, and we question why we SHOULD pay for YOUR lifestyle choices. If the seas rise, then YOU can buy a new house inland. Explain what's wrong with that thinking. We employ it in countless other settings. And, unlike a fire, for example, you have LOTS of lead time to move your azz elsewhere! In short, you have NO rigorous "cost model." Just speculations, and ALL build in such patently ridiculous presumptions that the bias is quite obviously built-in.

and it is possible that without good policies the less economically fortunate will be disproportionally hit...

Hmmm... somehow that's a DEAL-KILLER when it comes to health-insurance, but it's just okey-dokey when it comes to energy!?! What gives? What PRINCIPLES do you employ to decide when "the poor are gonna get screwed" vs. when "the poor are NOT gonna get screwed"?

but that is a policy issue and perhaps represents an event greater divergence in political opinion as to how to address it.

Yeah, and what is science going to contribute to answering THAT question? What scientific experiments are going to give us the light?

Part of what "I'm doing" is to look at the underlying political philosophy issues that inform possible answers to such questions. And I can tell you from long research that your "stick" approach is flat-out doomed. Oh, I guess I should say, unless you are seeking a Minority Report sort of society.

What will happen to this same population as the climate changes?

Well, that's back to the PRESUMPTION that climate change is all or even mostly bad. And PRESUMPTION it is!

In actual fact, the hotter times of Earth's history have been GREAT from a speciation point of view. WE don't THINK that WE are going to like it, with our limited vision and anthropocentric perspective. But so what? Some people are going to move. Some deserts are going to get much worse, and some non-arable land will become arable. The FACT is that science can't yet reliable predict the local weather, and it SURE cannot predict the subtle and pervasive socio-economic effects of climate change!

So, here's the news flash for you: Some people are going to suffer. Others will do GREAT! Some societies will suffer. Others will do GREAT! Some species will suffer. MOST will do GREAT, and likely there will be more species as a result.

Life goes on, and life finds a way. As a scientist, you should exhibit a bit more perspective. And, yeah, keep working on fusion. IF it ever works for us, it will be GREAT! If not, at least you tried. And that's something.

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Nov 25, 2018 - 02:34pm PT

you always go off mb

I am not a total vegetarian, but enough that people ask me all the time, "are you a vegetarian," when we go out to eat...

very little food wasted at our house too, and mostly in-season ingredients that are locally grown. There are certainly variations, but there is the awareness...

is my home solar? no, why? because we have reduced our energy use to a very low level, by insulating mostly, replacing single-pane windows, etc... our monthly energy bill is far below the average in our area. we don't suffer for it either, the home is warm in the winter, cool in the summer.

Dumping sewage is NOT a necessity... go a month without flushing or running water down the drain and report back.

Dumping sewage is RIDICULOUSLY irresponsible... as is dumping GHGs into the atmosphere, isn't the policy of our POTUS to flip off the rest of the world?

Dumping sewage is local and done in defiance of governmental policy... sure, and it seems that California is trying to reduce GHG emission...

Finally, but not exhaustively, it is RIDICULOUS to penalize industries that have NO options but to pass along the penalties to the very people that have the least options and the least capacity to pay.

most power utilities have a huge amount of public oversight, so it isn't at all like private industry. Further, whether or not this will make energy cost more, energy should cost more to account for the "externalities," foremost of which is climate change (but also health issues in and around the coal fired plants). Policy would include ways to alleviate these costs on those who have the fewest resources.

And neither you nor anybody else has ANY, and I mean ANY, idea what that is!

which is why a tax on GHG emission (a carbon tax) is such a good way to go, it doesn't presume what the costs are in detail, the market costs would all reflect the emission of GHGs, and we could then tell just what the costs are, leaving the market "free" and allowing people to choose.

I didn't say the poor would get screwed, revenues for GHG taxes could be used in a revenue neutral manner that was progressive.

Your take on natural history of life on Earth is an interesting opinion, and totally irrelevant. Humans are causing this recent extinction event, and changing the climate dramatically, and we know we are doing it, how we are doing it, and how long it will take to do it.

We don't have to do it.

wilbeer

Mountain climber

Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,

Nov 25, 2018 - 02:43pm PT

“Is your home solar?”

Yes ,have been for years.

I burn no FF’s,none at all and power my vehicles and cooktop with BD.

I am still building my house and the septic system is going in.

I am still living on gravel until the geothermal system with another solar array to power it are installed ,hopefully by spring.

I am a self employed carpenter that works in a bike shop and grooms the local hill.

I make less than 40k a year and can afford to do this.