Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:
Not sure I'd go that far... instead, promote/optimize public transportation. (more mono rails, electric buses, TRAINS!).

Public transportation is important, but unfortunately US geography is a problem. We've sprawled out under the assumption that everyone has a car, and connecting that sprawl with adequate public transportation is going to be a major investment (if it's even possible without moving people back into the cities). Moving to electric cars is much easier because it uses most of the same infrastructure and doesn't require people to make any major changes in their lives.

How? End "consumerism" as we know it?

Yep. Consumerism as we know it needs to end. It's an obscene waste where we spend vast amounts of resources on convincing people to spend even more vast amounts of resources on garbage they don't want, complete with transportation waste, packaging material waste, planned obsolescence to guarantee future waste, etc.

Our power grid definitely need upgrades. It'll take most of our lifetime to get that done though...

It will only take most of our lifetimes if we don't make it a high priority. The biggest obstacle isn't the actual work, it's getting enough funding priority to do it on a fast enough schedule.

 Peregrine wrote:
promote a cultural shift away from buying useless stuff just for the sake of owning stuff,

That's nine kinds of ironic on a board devoted to plastic fighting mens games.

The problem isn't coming up with solutions, by the way. The "problem" is that nobody cares. Seriously. Nobody gives a gak about this issue.

 BarBoBot wrote:
I think somewhere along the line you missed the part about America being a FREE country.

Oh good, more useless cliches instead of constructive discussion.

If I decide its in my best intrest to upgrade my electronics, I don't need some sap telling me what I should do with my money.

Do you understand the difference between a meaningful upgrade that you actually benefit from and buying the latest new thing just because it's new?

You know what I do when I see advertising that doesn't appeal to me? I ignore it.

FFS, this is exactly the problem. Huge amounts of money are spent on bombarding you with advertising that you're not interested in, in a desperate attempt to get someone to take the bait and buy something. Oh, and don't bother claiming that you aren't affected by advertising, because there are a lot of very rich marketing experts who disagree with you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
That's nine kinds of ironic on a board devoted to plastic fighting mens games.

I have nothing against buying gaming stuff. Buy all you want if you're actually going to use it. I only have a problem with the idea that we should buy obsessively just for the sake of buying, even if all we're ever going to do with the stuff is throw it in the closet to gather dust until it finally ends up in a dump somewhere.

 BarBoBot wrote:
I think somewhere along the line you missed the part about America being a FREE country.

The United States is a nation of laws, this, by definition, renders it not free.

I suppose I'll have to leave it up to someone as "enlightened" as yourself to tell me when I'm allowed to upgrade my stereo speakers... Becuase apparently I'm entirely too stupid to know for myself.

Sorry but this reeks of socialism. I'm sure the real reason people cant spend money on what they want is because you have deemed it "unfair" that some have more than you.

 BarBoBot wrote:

Having possessions is now bad... Just WHO decides what is useless?

The FDA, DHS, and the US Congress.

 dogma wrote:
The FDA, DHS, and the US Congress.

We'd be better off with one of those animals that picks World Cup winners.

 dogma wrote:

 BarBoBot wrote:
I think somewhere along the line you missed the part about America being a FREE country.

The United States is a nation of laws, this, by definition, renders it not free.

Oh except for the pesky bill of rights affirming what? Freedom of speach. Freedom of religeon, the right to bear arms etc.

The things that some people cherish, and that others cant wait to take away...

 Seaward wrote:

We'd be better off with one of those animals that picks World Cup winners.

Good to see that you're contributing in your habitual manner: one line at a time.

And to think, you tried to criticize me for doing the same thing!

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
That's true... but the term's usage evolved a bit.

Maybe, it doesn't really matter. But it's thirty different kinds of bs to try and discredit the science of climate change by complaining about how entirely different parties politically address the issue. It could be revealed tomorrow that Greenpeace are a scam that's attempting to use climate change to corner the market on hemp clothing to fund their dreams to put Hitler's brain in to a blue whale... and it still wouldn't change the basic, overwhelming nature of climate science.

I feel like you haven't read any of my earlier posts.

Yup.

Then we have nothing to discuss. Can't debate science with someone who is happy to reject the findings of scientific organisations. Makes the whole thing really fething pointless.

Really Seb?

So, do you believe everything your government tells you?

We. Don't. Know. Everything.

It's the highest of hubris to believe that we human kind has that sort of influence over mother nature, that many Climate Alarmist is perpetuating. Mother. Nature. Will. feth. You. Up. To. Thy. Kingdom. Come.

Here's the dealio Sebster... many scientists are convinced that human activity is a factor in influencing global warming... right? I'm not discounting that. Okay?
In addition, it is also well known that the causes extend outside human activities that we had no part in creating and which we are powerless to stop (Solar activites, volcanoes, oceanic trends, etc...). Here's the kicker... NO ONE is able to definitively peg a percentage of the warming that we’ve seen so far is attributable to natural vs. human causes. It's all educated guesses... The IPCC thought they had the answers in the 90s, which we now know is proven to be wrong.

The true danger, imo, is that someday people will realize that no matter what we do, we will never stop global warming entirely because a good fraction of the causes are natural and not anthropogenic.

By then, we may be able to figure it out a bit more to come up with a viable solution... but it'd be too late. People would be numb to climate hysteria and would react negatively to a possible legitimate policy. Classic Cry Wolf Syndrome here dude.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
And the failed hockey stick study too... amirite?

Wasn't failed. Some scientists have specific technical issues with the study, and other people (including the original authors but not just them) have specific technical answers, and meanwhile the whole of the field moved on with more complex and sophisticated models that they continue to refine.

Um... no, the tree ring data had to be hand-picked to get the desired result (getting that hockey bend). Even the National Academy of Science Report from 2006 clarifed that the hockey-stick methodologies lead "questionable historical reconstructions."

It's discredited largely by the scientific community.

Let me ask you this same question I asked the other posters: What would you have us do... specifically?

Reduce carbon emissions. Simplest way to do this is through making it expensive for industry to emit carbon. By fixing a price to emission you get an incentive to reduce current practices or move to entirely different practices.

feth. No.

That doesn't mean I want these industries to willfully ignore current laws/regulation to pollute the environment in the name of the almighty dolla... but, to have bureaucrats to artificially impose an "emission tax" is an asinine policy is crazy pants. There are better ways to achieve this.

Of course, this won't happen, because, essentially, people are fething insane. Staring at a cost to their daily living of 1 to 3%, they will freak the feth out, and when given extensive research that tells them the long term cost of refusing that mino cost... they will simply deny it. This can be established by reading this thread.

Because the research isn't complete Seb... We don't know what we don't fething know. There's no reason to implement drastic policies until we know for sure. In the meantime, if there's practical, sensible policies that encourages emissions reduction / recycling / green energy... I'm all for that. But when groups and bureaucrats pushes for polices that will raise the costs of daily living... and they justify it from things like that "97% consensus" bs line... there's no credibility dude.

Instead, the rich countries will have the resources to adapt, and the poor countries will get shafted. Human history as it always is.

Nah... it's the poorer country that are the big polluters (throw in India, China and Russia too).

 BarBoBot wrote:

Oh except for the pesky bill of rights affirming what? Freedom of speach. Freedom of religeon, the right to bear arms etc.

The things that some people cherish, and that others cant wait to take away...

If I cannot push the state to make a law which bans guns, and the state cannot enact it, then my freedom to push the state to enact a gun ban is restricted.

The Bill of Rights necessarily restricts freedom, as do all laws; as I said before.

 BarBoBot wrote:
I suppose I'll have to leave it up to someone as "enlightened" as yourself to tell me when I'm allowed to upgrade my stereo speakers... Becuase apparently I'm entirely too stupid to know for myself.

Sigh. Before we continue this "discussion" would you please re-read my posts and understand that I'm talking about voluntary cuts in consumerism, not imposing laws about how often you're allowed to buy stuff?

I'm sure the real reason people cant spend money on what they want is because you have deemed it "unfair" that some have more than you.

Oh FFS. It's not about being "fair" about how much money people are allowed to spend, it's about not trashing the environment by producing useless garbage that people buy and discard immediately because they never really wanted it in the first place. Right now you're looking like the kind of person who drives a giant SUV, not because you really like them, but because you hate "liberals" and want to prove a point.

 dogma wrote:
Good to see that you're contributing in your habitual manner: one line at a time.

And to think, you tried to criticize me for doing the same thing!

Sorry. I didn't realize it'd hurt your feelings to the extent you'd be bringing it up a week later.

And to be fair, I was criticizing your history of making demonstrably false claims - such as, "Obama never lied about being able to keep your health plan," or, "When I say companies force people to work for them, I don't mean they force people to work for them," - and then responding to the paragraphs posted in opposition with single-line attempts at sophistry.

One line responses are perfectly acceptable in certain situations. Climate change discussion, for example. I realize it's the sort of thing polisci PhDs sit around stroking themselves over for hours at a time, but concise and dismissive is exactly how this topic should be handled.

 whembly wrote:
So, do you believe everything your government tells you?

"The government" is not the same thing as peer-reviewed science. You're talking about a self-correcting system where everyone has a strong incentive to earn their fame and fortune by proving established theories wrong. If your facts and analysis are bad then it doesn't matter how much the government wants to use you as an example, people are going to publish research that proves you wrong and you'll end up as a brief mention on a list of obsolete theories. If you want to question the established opinion of the majority of experts in a given field then you need a lot more than reflexive skepticism about "the government".

It's the highest of hubris to believe that we human kind has that sort of influence over mother nature, that many Climate Alarmist is perpetuating.

No, it's just understanding science. How about instead of worshiping this idea of "mother nature" we see what the experts have to say? The models for how human activities impact the planet as a whole are far from "hubris".

NO ONE is able to definitively peg a percentage of the warming that we’ve seen so far is attributable to natural vs. human causes.

Who cares? As long as it's a non-zero percentage then we should be doing something about it. Insisting on knowing with absolute certainty whether we're entirely responsible or just contributing to the problem is like refusing to put out the fire in your kitchen because you're not sure whether to blame your bad cooking or bad electrical wiring.

but, to have bureaucrats to artificially impose an "emission tax" is an asinine policy is crazy pants.

Why? It's a perfectly reasonable solution that exploits greed to produce the desired changes. There are issues with the existing systems, especially the ability to buy your way out of the consequences without making any real changes and the lack of penalties on "developing" countries, but the fundamental concept of "stop polluting or you're not going to make any profits" is a good one.

 Seaward wrote:

Sorry. I didn't realize it'd hurt your feelings to the extent you'd be bringing it up a week later.

You can't hurt my feelings, I just have a very good memory.

 Seaward wrote:

And to be fair, I was criticizing your history of making demonstrably false claims - such as, "Obama never lied about being able to keep your health plan," - and then responding to the paragraphs posted in opposition with single-line attempts at sophistry.

And you're attacking me for having hurt feelings? That was almost 6 months ago, and was not my argument.

But, if you wish to continue, we should take this to PM.

For the record, I do drive an SUV and I have multiple ATV's (gasp even though I can't ride more than 1 at a time!) and I also hate liberalism.

I don't drive my SUV because I'm trying to prove a point. I need a 4x4 because I find it practical for my needs. Hating liberalism has nothing to do with it.

I don't care if you want an electric car, just don't push your gak on me.

 BarBoBot wrote:
...and I also hate liberalism.

I doubt that you surprised anyone.

 BarBoBot wrote:
I don't care if you want an electric car, just don't push your gak on me.

I don't want an electric car, I want to minimize the damage done to the environment. And that means everyone* goes all-electric, with zero-emission cars charging from clean nuclear/hydroelectric/etc power. Turning this into some "freedom" issue where everyone has their choice of car is missing the point entirely. Unless you're a mindless Ayn Rand cultist freedom has its limits, and this is a situation where imposing some of those limits is justified.

*Excluding the occasional dedicated hobbyist/collector, whose impact on the overall problem is negligible.

Is expressing ones opinions and views not acceptable to you?

Does my hate of liberalism disqualify my opinions?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 BarBoBot wrote:
I don't care if you want an electric car, just don't push your gak on me.

I don't want an electric car, I want to minimize the damage done to the environment. And that means everyone* goes all-electric, with zero-emission cars charging from clean nuclear/hydroelectric/etc power. Turning this into some "freedom" issue where everyone has their choice of car is missing the point entirely. Unless you're a mindless Ayn Rand cultist freedom has its limits, and this is a situation where imposing some of those limits is justified.

*Excluding the occasional dedicated hobbyist/collector, whose impact on the overall problem is negligible.

As long as people like you try to force their beliefs on others, people like me will push back.

Your idea of a better world may involve electric cars. Mine isn't.

You can take your 40 mile per 12 hour charge car and stick it...

 BarBoBot wrote:
As long as people like you try to force their beliefs on others, people like me will push back.

Of course. People like you will always exist and be a problem. The only question here is whether your kind of selfish ideology will become an irrelevant minority in time to fix our problems.

Your idea of a better world may involve electric cars. Mine isn't.

At least mine still involves cars of some kind. Yours seems to involve pretending the problems of finite oil resources and climate change don't exist, and then wondering why gas is up to $100 a gallon and you're taking the electric bus everywhere.

 Peregrine wrote:
I don't want an electric car, I want to minimize the damage done to the environment. And that means everyone* goes all-electric, with zero-emission cars charging from clean nuclear/hydroelectric/etc power. Turning this into some "freedom" issue where everyone has their choice of car is missing the point entirely. Unless you're a mindless Ayn Rand cultist freedom has its limits, and this is a situation where imposing some of those limits is justified.

*Excluding the occasional dedicated hobbyist/collector, whose impact on the overall problem is negligible.

No dreams like pipe dreams, I suppose.

Tell you what: I'm fully on board with this as long as you can vouch for China and India doing the same.

 BarBoBot wrote:
You can take your 40 mile per 12 hour charge car and stick it...

First of all, you're not impressing anyone by using obsolete numbers. How about looking at a modern electric car, with 200+ miles of range and 30+ miles per hour of charging (much more with dedicated charging infrastructure available). Replace gas stations with charging stations and you can drive until you're tired of driving, and charge your battery while you eat lunch.

Second, most driving is within a fairly small range. You don't need 500+ mile range for your 10 mile daily commute, so what you're left with for justification is the ability to make the occasional long trip without having to take a bus/train. And even that justification is going to disappear entirely as range improves beyond the point where the vast majority of people aren't willing to drive that far in one day.

Finally, range is an engineering challenge, not an inherent limit of electric cars. It's only going to improve, and the fastest way to get those improvements is to stop letting car manufacturers ignore electric cars in favor of their existing products.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
Tell you what: I'm fully on board with this as long as you can vouch for China and India doing the same.

Obviously that isn't possible, but it's also not a sensible requirement. Other countries deciding to take a short-sighted approach and ignore future consequences doesn't mean that we should do the same just to prove a point about "fairness".

 Peregrine wrote:
Obviously that isn't possible, but it's also not a sensible requirement. Other countries deciding to take a short-sighted approach and ignore future consequences doesn't mean that we should do the same just to prove a point about "fairness".

I don't think we should do the same to prove a point about "fairness."

I think we should do the same to avoid pointlessly gutting our economy to effect no change. Also, because I am one of the majority who couldn't give a gak less about this issue.

 Seaward wrote:
I think we should do the same to avoid pointlessly gutting our economy to effect no change.

You seem to have a rather unconventional definition of "no change". If the climate change from India and China is bad, then the climate change from them and the US is going to be even worse. Reducing the damage as much as possible is better than nothing, even if it isn't a perfect solution.

Also, because I am one of the majority who couldn't give a gak less about this issue.

Yeah, who cares about whether the future is going to suck or not. I really have no idea how a reasonable an intelligent person can fail to care about the issue. Believe that the scientists are wrong? Sure. Believe that it's not worth thinking about or that our policies don't matter? No.

How many years have they been claiming that oil is going to run out? The "experts" said it would be gone by now, but somehow we have found more oil, and more ways to get oil from different sources.

Not to mention that the US has been called the "Saudi Arabia of natural gas".

Your zero emissions electric car isn't going to pull my trailer, or do any of the other things i need my 4x4 for. Its useless to me.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yeah, who cares about whether the future is going to suck or not.

More fearmongering. Scare them into following your orders, and when that doesn't work...shove it down their throats

People don't want to believe something that would require they change their convenient lifestyle or which would hit them in the wallet. This thread is descending into 'waah, that sounds like socialism' and 'b-but I can't have everything I want' in response to the suggestion that we take a serious look at the waste and pollution resulting from wasteful consumerism.

The reason that alternative energies will have to be supported eventually is because fossil fuels are running out and the cost will spiral, it'll hit people in the wallet. There just isn't the interest to act 'for the environment'. And some people don't even believe fossil fuels will run out. Hell, a not insignificant number of poeople in the US struggle to believe in an Earth millions of years as old required for fossils or the arguments required in studying climate change over extremely long periods.

 Peregrine wrote:
You seem to have a rather unconventional definition of "no change". If the climate change from India and China is bad, then the climate change from them and the US is going to be even worse. Reducing the damage as much as possible is better than nothing, even if it isn't a perfect solution.

If you, me, and Bob are all in a lifeboat, it's going to sink if all three of us start poking holes in it. It'll sink a little slower if you refuse and it's just me and Bob, but it'll still sink.

And that's the dire, dire, DIRE situation you're telling us about. Our lifeboat will sink, unless everyone in the world hugs a tree and starts singing Kumbaya. I know that's not going to happen, so why bother?

Yeah, who cares about whether the future is going to suck or not.

Not I.

 BarBoBot wrote:
How many years have they been claiming that oil is going to run out?

Sigh. The fact that we haven't run out yet doesn't mean that we don't have a problem. Some of the initial estimates may have been wrong, but that's because they're estimates, not absolute guarantees. There's uncertainty in how much oil we have, but it's indisputable fact that it's a finite resource and eventually we're going to run out.

The "experts" said it would be gone by now, but somehow we have found more oil, and more ways to get oil from different sources.

Yes, and the oil we keep finding is smaller and smaller volumes. Discovery of new oil isn't keeping up with demand, and production volume is declining. Notice how gas prices are a bit more expensive than they used to be? It's just basic supply and demand.

As for new ways to get oil, no, not really. What's actually happening is that the supply problem is getting bad enough that oil prices have increased to the point where it's profitable to start using ways that were previously too expensive or inefficient to bother with. It's a sign of desperation, not innovation. And it's certainly not going to change the fact that oil is a finite resource.

Not to mention that the US has been called the "Saudi Arabia of natural gas".

Which is still a finite resource, and requires major infrastructure changes. If you're going to have everyone buy new natural gas cars then you might as well go for the better solution of electric cars instead.

Your zero emissions electric car isn't going to pull my trailer, or do any of the other things i need my 4x4 for.

Well, you've certainly done a good job of establishing that you have no clue about this subject.

To me, necessity is the mother of invention. If climate change is as catastrophic as people say it will be, than imagine the wonders that will result - floating cities, submerged utopias, amphibious cars...

...or it could not be catastrophic, and everything will be fine.

...or it could be semi-catastrophic and only destroy certain things, in which case, whatever - we've had wars more devastating than that, and look at the technology those wars drove.

And lastly, I will say that I doubt climate change will result in the extinction of humans. It is unlikely that we will adapt more slowly than the climate will change, what with our intelligence.

 Seaward wrote:
And that's the dire, dire, DIRE situation you're telling us about. Our lifeboat will sink, unless everyone in the world hugs a tree and starts singing Kumbaya.

Except that's NOT what anyone is saying. This isn't some all or nothing situation where we either continue on exactly as we are now, or everyone dies. There's a wide range of potential effects, depending how much damage we do. Limiting the damage might not avoid the consequences entirely, but it can prevent the worst effects or at least delay them long enough that we have time to adapt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
And lastly, I will say that I doubt climate change will result in the extinction of humans. It is unlikely that we will adapt more slowly than the climate will change, what with our intelligence.

Of course not. The question though is how many people are going to be left behind. Losing 20% of crop yields because your former biggest farming regions no longer have an ideal climate is bad if you're a wealthy country, but you probably have the resources to deal with it. Losing 20% of crop yields means mass starvation and death if you're a country that is already suffering from starvation and depending on foreign food aid just to keep the death rate down. "Don't worry about it now, we'll deal with it later if anything bad happens" is an attitude you can only afford to have if you're privileged enough to live in a wealthy country and think Ayn Rand created the greatest ethical system ever.