[Discussion] Climate Change

This thread is just to post interesting news, thoughts, opinions about climate change.

You think we should study the impact of humans burning carbon over the last few thousand years or longer? Or back to when there were 10 humans and one fire?

"Other responses have shown you how wrong you are about mankind's impact on climate change and how wrong you are on Republican's being the party most concerned about the environment. I suppose the next step is to take any actual suggestion of what to do and dismiss them out of hand as prohibitively expensive or politically unfeasible"

Yet you have provided NO proof in data or peer reviewed articles to support this comment. BTW...no proof at all other than 'hey, you are wrong...' The goalpost I keep asking and only 1 or 2 responses have alluded is how do you propose (other than clicking our heels and wishing for pretty things to happen) that we do something about climate change in any real sense?

Goalpost is sitting there...so how bout you answer the question vice plain insults. I've given peer reviewed articles and actual scientific discussion....and historical fact...Give me concrete suggestions - hell, have you read Paris or Copenhagen or the UN Sustainable Goals to even understand the benchmarks and discuss? I'll wait right here...

Mixolyde

Jeez...i'm guessing we don't have a real scientific crowd here with "You think we should study the impact of humans burning carbon over the last few thousand years or longer? Or back to when there were 10 humans and one fire?"

If I'm trying to prove that things are getting hotter, and I pick Tampa on the a Friday when the high was 55, and then study one week as the temp moves to 80, guess what, my data shows yes, it is. Selecting 50 years is more comprehensive, but still limited. This is from me - as one full class with Dr Tindale focused on this exact aspect of being careful to set the right parameters. Yes - the impact of human and carbon and GHG over civilization matters, but I also recognize that pre-Ind Revolution it was minimal. But that is the point...by selecting smaller data sets to prove that 100% of warming in only 50 years is due to humans, we ignore the natural warming of the earth and the cycles of climate change. We only have part of the picture.

So let me sum it up...yes, you have to consider a longer time period. Yes, mankind seriously impacted the climate. But until you understand the data set and quit playing with what is effectively 'one week of data' in the history of earth, you actually have no clue of the actual parameters to set up effective remediation processes.

Then comes the question - so what do you do that reverses this trend in the next 10 - 20 years...thoughts on that?

Let me once again set the goalposts...ignoring political bias...What do you propose we do that is realistic given these numbers alone?

"Emissions from the top four emitters combined account for 56 percent of global GHG emissions –China
(26.8 percent), the United States (13.1 percent), the European Union and its 28 Member States (9
percent) and India (7 percent)."

Past efforts at Copenhagen showed both the US and EU willing to bite the bullet and pay and agree to caps...but that is 22.1% only of GHG emissions...

Pigpen this isn't your fault (it's a natural symptom of holding a minority position on a forum) but your central points are getting diluted. Can you confirm my take on your position?

1) Climate Change is real
2) Humans are contributing to climate change
3) You can't conclude with 100% certainty that humans are the sole contributing factor to climate change
4) You reject all current proposed solutions to fighting climate change like replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy, drastically reducing material consumption among wealthier nations, and dismantling capitalism (edit: or, the ecofascist solution, which is mass genocide of indigenous and early industrial societies worldwide)?

Can you confirm these are your central tenets?

Pigpen wrote:

Jeez...i'm guessing we don't have a real scientific crowd here

: D

IMAGE(http://wondermark.com/c/2014-09-19-1062sea.png)

Pigpen, I feel like you're making the claim of "cherry-picking" data to invalidate the 1951-current dataset ("it's too short a period") but then also making the same claim for the 1750-current dataset, and any others that are chosen. Except that the argument over longer periods shades to "...we don't have enough data to trust". You say you understand that anthropogenic warming real, which also presupposes that you know that there are well-founded attributions for the sources of the warming, right? But at the same time, you imply that we have simply not had enough time to figure out the causes well enough to take action, scientifically (we don't know enough to "set up effective remediation processes), and simultaneously, you argue that the problem is simply too hard to solve politically, economically and socially. I believe you also alluded to the cost of remediation being potentially too high (although you don't give a cost for non-remediation...).

What I'd call your attention to hear is that with this multiple objection framing you've neatly prevented anyone from being able to answer your objections. You can reject data pre-1750 as too scarce. Data from 1951-current is not too scarece, but is too little to be sure what is causing the problem. Data from 1750 to today you imply would show much less warming (but that seems to ignore the famous "hockey stick" shape of that data, as well as your insistence that warming is happening). You reject the pragmatic "do what you can with what you have, and improve it when you can" as impossible for political reasons (ie, what does it matter what we do if China, India and Russia don't go along?). You also argue that even if we could fix things, it would cost too much.

The problem is this. You're not basing your objections on one principle carried through all of them. What does it mean when you have to attribute each arbitrarily chosen section of your data to different causes? It means that you are cherry-picking your objections, rather than basing them on a single principled objection.

The fact is - and you allude to it without thinking it through - the consensus view is that humans have affected the climate in ways that are noticeable for thousands of years, and that that forcing has increased in magnitude over time, culminating in very great increases in a very short period of time. This has been demonstrated on all continents except Antarctica (and I think that is changing due to new data). It's been found at all the relevant layers of the atmosphere. It is picked up by all the major sources of data (satellites, water and land observations, tree rings, C isotope fractions, historical records, geology and probably more). It's one. consistent. explanation that does not vary in its nature from the origins of human civilization until now, only in its magnitude of effect. There are literally no studies that show that *any* known natural variability can account for the changes we've seen since at least 1750. And that is tiny on a geological scale, but as part of human history, it's pretty damn significant. If we take a geological viewpoint, that of the mountains and seas, we simply don't give a damn if we go through another million years of the Dekkan Traps, because the Earth will come through it fine. But if we take a *human*perspective, we as a species have never lived through this magnitude of climate change. Ever.

There is one, single attribution of causes for the entire chain of evidence that you object to with a variety of partial objections depending on the time frame. Isn't that a problem for your stance?

There are multiple lines of evidence that converge on the idea that human-sourced GHG gasses are causing the the problems we see, and will continue to cause them. You have not offered a single consistent thread to object to the data over, say, the last 10,000 years that supports these lines of evidence. That should worry you. You should think about that. Because once you pull one of those lines of objection from your stance, the whole thing falls apart.

The worst, of course, is pretending that existential problems are politically or financially insoluble. That's a *human* problem that has nothing to do with source attribution or the magnitude of the changes. That is the problem that is *most* amenable to solution, although the longer we wait, the more dire the economic and social consequences will be. But that's the thing you should be *least* worried about, because it will change as the interests of various countries shift from growth to survival, should we be stupid enough to let that happen. That, at least, is a self-correcting part of the problem, even if that correction gets bloody. That's the nature of long-term inaction that you imply is our only choice, btw. If you want to avoid blood in the scuppers, you need to advocate *some* change and stick to it. Otherwise you're handing the problem to our children, pure and simple.

Look, we know what is causing the problem; industrial activity (okay, economic activity) that increases the various GHGs into the atmosphere. We know how to fix it (reduce the use of processes that put them in the atmosphere). It follows that *anything* that we do to reduce that is, pragmatically, better than doing nothing, and any improvements that follow improve on the solution. Science is constantly improving its knowledge base through this pragmatic approach to gathering and processing information, and it also applies to how we deal with mitigation. Even baby steps are steps. But hesitancy based on picking objections for each perceived different period... That's just cherry-picking your objections, and the consequences of inaction are the fruit of that choice of framing. "It's too hard" will doom us all.

Robear - great posts, and I keep missing how folks are reading around what i'm saying clearly (at least to me).

I ABSOLUTELY accept the reality of climate change and a significant contributing factor is mankind and the processes we use that toss GHG into the atmosphere.

...putting this here...as want that all to sink in with folks...

Now...what I have railed against is misinformation. Any allusion that 100%+ of climate change is human created has no scientific evidence or basis. I rail against the period of limited data to show any 100%+ data is based on a limited data period and data set...NOT to show that humans are not a MAJOR impact (they are)...but when someone erroneously says 'most'...i'm going to call it out as false and explain the reasoning.

The first and last of your paragraphs are key...I largely agree with all of your premise and data and facts. I'm not sure how that is being missed. It appears on the boards that if I call one piece of your data incorrectly interpreted (data set and time period), I am saying your data is invalid. NOWHERE have I said that good sir...

I'll try to point by point later...but dynamic I've tried to push is we don't fully know how to fix it globally...you allude to the concept of reduce GHG - and that is primary...but I allude to how do we reduce them. I can give you ten companies who have committed and are moving in that direction...there are another thousand doing the same...and thats just in the US. But I know that is NOT enough. The baby steps are huge, and such as with the mitigation banks and restoration of wetlands, they all help and add up.

I've also NOT said the mitigation costs were necessarily too high, or the price of this - I said 'excessive' regulation actually increases operating costs and decreases innovation aimed at minimizing GHG and maximizing sustainable processes. I have said us going this alone without Russia and China onboard is spitting in a strong wind...

I guess in summary, aside from where you seem to leap to conclusions on things I have said that I have not (climate change isn't real, costs are too high to do anything, consequences of inaction, too hard...etc) - I love and largely agree with your specific and well rationaled summation above and my posts have supported that.

But we must get to specifics - the nebulous decrease GHG doesn't bring us home and solve the problem...OUR problem...
- How do we avoid another Paris or Copenhagen?
- How does the admin in pursuit of any deal actually realize a horrid deal is NOT better than no deal...and for once, play hardball and use the economic might of the US to force Russia and China, and India into getting on board...
- How do we do better at getting lessons learned out to providers to improve processes and make them more systemically sustainable
- How do we restore lost ecosystems smartly and increase urban green space
(I can write on all these...and have over the past two years...all are part of the solutions...and we have to aggressively pursue them.)

I give actual hardball solutions, cite sources, and even give details on multiple paths to take to begin to actively and globally reverse GHG..so how is it I'm taken as against the reality of this situation and climate change?

Any allusion that 100%+ of climate change is human created has no scientific evidence or basis. I rail against the period of limited data to show any 100%+ data is based on a limited data period and data set...NOT to show that humans are not a MAJOR impact (they are)...but when someone erroneously says 'most'...i'm going to call it out as false and explain the reasoning.

Oh, come on. Obviously we're not 100% of anything. But claiming that us spitting vast amounts of carbon and methane into the atmosphere isn't causing most of the damage is just silly.

The Earth was in a cooling trend before the dawn of the Industrial Age. It isn't anymore. Not coincidence.

How do we avoid another Paris or Copenhagen?

What is it, specifically, that you hate so much about those? You keep saying that they're horrible-awful-no-damn-good, sort of implying we should all be embarrassed to be on the same planet as those agreements, but you never say why.

Seth...

to respond - and you hit the nail on the head...i hold a minority political view that seems to dilute the message I have posted about in lenght and citing scientific articles.

1) Climate Change is real - YUP
2) Humans are contributing to climate change - ABSOLUTELY
3) You can't conclude with 100% certainty that humans are the sole contributing factor to climate change - 100% - ABSOLUTELY CORRECT - THERE IS no evidence when you look at long term climate models - and any scientist will agree...that humans are the sole cause of global warming. If I pick last week, or 50 years...sure...but in terms of earch and global climate change...there is NO science that supports this false assertion. (BTW...i can get some of the scientists through my environmental profs, but you all would poo poo that anyway, but please feel free to find any who don't add in that time frame caveat)
4) You reject all current proposed solutions to fighting climate change like replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy, drastically reducing material consumption among wealthier nations, and dismantling capitalism (edit: or, the ecofascist solution, which is mass genocide of indigenous and early industrial societies worldwide)? HOLY BAT sh*t...this is the exact opposite of everything I've posted...so please find any support that says that...
- Green is the way, Green Energy as well...but we are not ready for 100% green energy in the next 5-10 years...we need to move aggressively...but keep pipelines and natural gas in transition mode as they are largely going to now.
- Material consumption...damn man...I posted on Nestle...want a few 20 page papers on companies that have done just that in reducing the processes, including sustainable material and products, and so on. Better yet...pick the top 10 in any major industry and look at the green review of the company and their CSR and read and learn.
- Wealthier nations - I posted on Copenhagen and applauded Obama and the EU for their efforts to bite the bullet and pay...but Russia, India and other factors led to failure. We have to support, but that cannot be a US/EU go it along process...
- Dismantling capitalism is stupid...I'll call that one out. Socialism in Russia and China has led to where they don't give two rat sh*ts. Capitalism, flavored with whatever concept of social sustainable policies we can get is the path. Capitalism has led to the burst of methods in green technology and batteries. How does a crazy concept like dismantling capitalism have any relation or reality to improving sustainable efforts?? Seriously...this is ... (you did caveat the argument with indigineous and pre industrial societies...so toss me some examples where the US has pushed the policy recently of destroying societies...again, look at the CSR's and the human factor and society factor - READ the UN sustainable goals and look at the focus on just this subject and respecting the native and pre-industrial population...and heck...do some traveling and see the actual impact of these companies on societies - some good, some not - I think Dutch Shell was a bad, but have to find that paper...)

EDIT - Look up Green Industrial Policy and Trade A Tool-Box by PAGE as a good resource

So how the heck did you come up with my assertions of being against these processes when I'm writing my dissertation on restorations of Florida wetlands to improve the ecosystem benefits while encourating investment...HOW?

Malor
I'll repost vice point to it...this is just Copenhagen...I posted much earlier but there is an FEU article that I discussed showing the failures of Paris...by signatories...Peer Article

So here's another one - this is authored by me...not wiki or such. You all shout from the rooftops lets rejoin the Paris Accord or such silliness. As an example, and I already highlighted the failure that is Paris...and the embarassment rejoining it is...but lets go to its predecessor - the failure of Copenhagen and try to get on point to the complexity of the issue of Climate Change that this austere body continues to ignore...What should be done... (PS - to show my moderation to the reality of the science, I even applaud Obama admin for its efforts at Copenhagen, even though it failed - it was not for not trying...)

"• Part 1:
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has set the foundation for climate conferences since 1992 (Summary, 2009). The 2009 United Nations Summit on Climate Change in Copenhagen included 115 world leaders and was set up to provide a groundbreaking path forward as the next step past the Kyoto Protocol agreement. The focus of the effort was to keep global temperatures from rising no more than 2C by key emissions reductions.
The key coalitions that formed included The US (which initially offered a 25B commitment that was pulled back when other nations did not reciprocate), China (focused on coming out party as a climate player and economic powerhouse), UK, Japan, Brazil, India and other nations desirous of commitments to climate change…on the surface, and members of the G77 Group (130 or so developing countries) – of these, a small cadre of states continued to veto proposals for undemocratic leaning issues.
The final deal was put together in a last-ditch effort to have ‘something’ to show, and was pieced together by the US, China, India, Brazil and South Africa on the final night (Vidal, 2009). As any individual involved in negotiations will tell you; any brokered agreement in the last day or night generally fails at most key points. However, in context, remember that for t he first time, many of the world’s leaders gathered to discuss the serious matter of climate change (Summary, 2009).
• Part 2:
Why did the convention end in discord? There are multiple reasons. There was concern over the language of developing and developed nations that continues to envelope these types of meetings. Many developing nations feel they should be duly compensated for efforts to address climate change and to hold the wealthier nations accountable. Part of the failure was that the final effort had no obligations stated on those developing countries to make cuts.
(Editor’s note – the blame game will always lead to failure. Identify ‘why’ on an issue, and fix it. The sole ‘why’ cannot be someone’s success should be a cause of disdain.)
The real effort lies in the economic concerns of key nations; the US, China, India and Russia are vast nations who have no interest in putting aside economic ‘chips’ that would deflate their economic leverage on the world scale. Anyone who knows me knows I am not a fan of President Obama’s foreign policy efforts – that said, I felt there was a strong and genuine effort on his part to bring the diplomatic leverage of his administration, in good faith, to support this effort. In his responses at the time, there was a strong hint that he felt China’s efforts were the key roadblock in a substantive deal (Vidal, 2009). Obama directly felt that the focus of some nations on past agreements was used as a reason to block any truly new and necessary agreement.
While the efforts may be real and viable, we see the manipulation of markets by China as a key example of their efforts to dominate economically, with this meeting set as their effort to become a key player in global politics (Bernstein, 2010). The failure of these efforts, and this is entirely one man’s opinion, rests with the understanding that key world powers refuse to put aside their economic advantage focus for the sake of climate issues, among other issues.
I feel strongly on this issue, and for those that would clump the US in there, I can point out a dozen efforts from the Berlin Airlift to the rebuilding of Japan, Germany and Iraq as points where the US has put the world’s needs as a priority at expense in manpower and funding to the United States.
When the final document of such a massive effort is a three-page document that affirms a goal to limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius, with non-binding internal set goals, you realize the effort was largely a failure.
• Part 3
John Sauven, the executive director of Greenpeace UK stated the following: "The city of Copenhagen is a crime scene tonight… It is now evident that beating global warming will require a radically different model of politics than the one on display here in Copenhagen" (Vidal, 2009).
How do we get away from the politics to saving the earth – or are we even there yet (ie, not close enough to the precipice for nations to truly see the light.)
The UN has largely lost is moral compass and imperative due to its perceived bias on committees such as the Human Rights council, mismanagement of funds and clear anti-US bias. As such, it is not the right vehicle to lead this type of effort sadly. The UN Framework provides vital foundation for this type of effort. Until it can put a more ‘good-faith’ effort such as done with UNICEF, it becomes a support player.
From a personal perspective, many of the global agreements from the UN and many of these parties in the environmental movement are often poorly dressed and miscast wealth distribution models more than legitimate efforts to deal with climate change. We find ourselves understanding part of the sustainable effort is to deal with global economic issues, but often find the vulnerable and developing nations looking to the industrialized nations to provide the money and boots on the ground effort. I have never felt this would get the world where it needs to go. While much of the world looks at the wealth of the US, it should be noted, the US is one of the younger nations at the table. I have always taken a hard look at other nations who must look internally to understand why their economy does not have the strength that you see in the US, Japan or Germany for instance.
First – Skin in the game – ALL nations must commit hard line efforts to decrease Nations such as the US should not take the steps while other nations do not and thus gain a competitive advantage in the global economy. Developing countries need to commit some of their hard-earned efforts and resources to the effort. This is not a ‘give me’ game, but instead, a fight for our survival.

Second – Hard economic measures and goals. This is the key failure of most of these efforts (Kyoto, Paris, Copenhagen).
Third – The Council of Fifteen – 15 nations (similar to a security council effort) should sit at a table and negotiate in hard efforts and good faith on behalf of the world. That would include:
US, Russia, Great Britain, China, Germany, Japan, India, South Africa, Netherlands, South Korea and 5 at-large nations chosen from the developing world. Five scientists would be appointed as advisors and there would be two facilitators to drive the discussion and agreement. These nations would hash out an agreement that would outline key details for emissions decreases and leave the efforts up to the nations for final execution. All nations would be required to donate a static portion of their GNP to a fund that would be used to support developing nations in their efforts. Any nation not signing onto the agreement would face significant economic penalties as a pariah in the world’s economy.
Finally – the motto – Think Globally, Conserve Locally
Well – you asked my thoughts!

References:
Bernstein, S., Betsill, M., Hoffman, M., & Paterson, M. (2010). A tale of two Copenhagen’s: Carbon markets and climate governance. Millennium, 39(1), 161-173. Retrieved from: https://journals-sagepub-com.proxy.c....
Dimitrov, R. S. (2010). Inside Copenhagen: the state of climate governance. Global environmental politics, 10(2), 18-24. doi: 10.1162/glep.2010.10.2.18
Kilian, B., & Elgström, O. (2010). Still a green leader? The European Union’s role in international climate negotiations. Cooperation and Conflict, 45(3), 255–273. doi: 10.1177/0010836710377392
Summary of The Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, (2009), Earth Negotiations Bulletin Volume 12 Number 459. Retrieved from: https://enb.iisd.org/vol12/enb12459e...
United Nations Climate Change, 2019, Retrieved from: https://unfccc.int/
Vidal, J., Goldenberg, S., & Stratton, A. (2009, December 19). Low targets, goals dropped: Copenhagen ends in failure. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/environm....

I just found this funny.

Why can't we say "dismantling socialism is stupid...I'll call that one out. Capitalism in the US has let to where they don't' give two rat sh*ts. Socialism, flavored with whatever concept of capitalist sustainable polices we can get is the path.

Pigpen wrote:

Dismantling capitalism is stupid...I'll call that one out. Socialism in Russia and China has led to where they don't give two rat sh*ts. Capitalism, flavored with whatever concept of social sustainable policies we can get is the path.

It is possible that both systems - taken on their own - are failures. That really neither is better or worse but both can be better or worse depending on how they are implemented.

Thank you for your responses and the time it took to respond, Pigpen.

I wasn't really interested in your take on capitalism or socialism but I suppose it provided some additional color to your rejection of the dismantling of capitalism as a viable method of fighting climate change.

You don't have to point by point my post, Pigpen, that was not my intent and I thank you for your response. I need to think about a response and I'm tired (death in the family this past week). I'm sorry I misunderstood your stance.

I'm still trying to figure out how this dude comes in posts some nonsense about Republican's being the true saviors of climate change with zero evidence then OG painfully refutes just about every point with actual data with references and this dude gish gallops right over it and never bothers to say.. oh snap.. you know what I just completely made that first post up to troll some folks.. my bad.

If that's how you are going about your PHD then god have mercy on your advisors... unless its a Player Hater Degree then you are doing it fine.

call it Greater Internet PhD-wad theory: the intelligence and experience with which someone operates out in the real world doesn't necessarily translate into their posts on the internet.

Seth... So I'll bite and ask for examples in the world that support the premise that socialism has been particularly more beneficial to sustainable growth causes and GHG emission reduction than capitalism? I have seen the exact opposite in experience and data from China Russia India and other non EU countries... Not to mention that the government of the last 4 years has not been particularly environmentally friendly and thus while you've seen huge advances in sustainable processes and products in the US that would support the concept that it is capitalism and market forces that are driving that. EU is not socialism but does have particular elements that support good social practices that I mentioned in my post.

GG... Thank you for a completely inane and useful? post. I posted some of my discussion boards which will show the policy and process I use in my papers as well as the references and sources. Not that you'd have any particular interest in reading that because of its source data I'm scientific parameters but it's there should you want it. Thanks for that contribution to this threat...

Game Cheese and others . Let me be even more blunt - I'm trying to discuss the topic in order to get more agreement and more understanding out there so we can try and find some solution to get us out of this mess we're in. Wow the criticism continues to roll in let me be blunt...

This Republicans small business four has purchased over 800 acres of degraded and destroyed wetland and is rehabbing it in an effort to restore it and protect it not just for a few years but in perpetuity...forever.

Additionally following on with that not only are we trying to get another 400 acres of high-value land but I'm working on my dissertation with the sole goal of trying to increase not only the ecosystem benefit of wetland restoration but the investment potential so that more folks get into it and more wetland is actually protected. Maybe spend a little time and look up the ramsar convention or the value of wetlands...

So let me ask what your contribution has been to combating climate change at a local regional national or global level...?

Pigpen wrote:

OG - two things...first, the article you post and me saying you are wrong are not mutually exclusive. The article states a period of study of 50 years and I don't dispute that nor the impact of human influence in those 50 years, and as pointed out, since the industrial revolution. (point 1)

You did dispute that. DSGamer said that humans were likely responsible for most of the Earth's temperature increase and you said:

Pigpen wrote:

NO climate scientist or even new age hippie would agree with that. I've seen peer articles putting 5-10% often, as low as a percent to up to maybe 30% but never 'most of it'. There is no scientific proof to support that...none.

You were then show two papers representing the global consensus of the science on climate change that did, indeed, say that most of the Earth's temperature increase is from human activity. You then continued to hand wave it away without so much as even providing a single (credible) source for your claim.

Pigpen wrote:

Point 2 is that the period of data consideration is too short, and many scientists and data nerds understand and accept this. How long has the earth existed, and even if you talk modern history, are we talking 2000 years...or what? Thus, when you consider an actual ecological time frame reference...which is NOT 50 years...the data changes significantly and swiftly because of the fluctuations of the normal earth cycle...and well, we don't have that data from 2000 years ago in full (geology provides some).

You honestly think that you're smarter that people who already have their PhDs and who've been researching this issue their entire career, don't you? That no scientist, or "data nerd" as you contemptuously put it, has ever considered the issue that we have lots of measurements and data for recent history and far fewer as we got back in time? That they haven't figured out ways to compensate for that in their models or adjust them as they see how well--or not well--they track with new observations?

But I see you need to hold this belief because as long as you can cast doubt on the science--humans aren't really responsible for most of the temperature change, just some (but not enough that we have to do something about it) or we can't trust what scientists say about current temperature increases in recent decades because they can't seamlessly and directly compare it to what happened to Earth's climate thousands or millions of years ago--you can position climate change as both a problem that's too intractable to solve and one that doesn't really need to be solved because who knows if those Poindexters are even right, ammirite?

Pigpen wrote:

Valid considerations, but how do you provide the incentive system and monitor it to underdeveloped nations who frequently then squander those resources on 'not green' incentives, graft and corruption. I reference my time in Afghanistan for that...they have to want to be helped...some do...some do not.

I am exceedingly confident that somewhere out in the world there are people who are much smarter and much more knowledgeable and experienced than I am who have not only already thought about these issues, but have probably written numerous papers or articles detailing how to overcome them or will come up with a solution. Humans might be a greedy ass species, but we're also quite adaptable and innovative when we need to be.

Pigpen wrote:

And there we have it...right back to your ideological BS...no facts...pure opinion...and the fact i'm on here discussing options actually immediately disproves your stereotyping 'conservatives' as not willing to discuss and accept the solutions. Sad but common... But again, lets posit your comment is anything other than blathering...what proof do you have that the 'liberal' solutions work better to reduce GHG and provide sustainable alternatives? For instance, is Musk a liberal in his effort to make a better battery to support green energy and electric vehicles... (I don't know, but I sure know he thinks Cali is bat-sh*t crazy...). You did state that conservatives will doom us.

So the guy who started this conversation by claiming--with no supporting facts, just pure opinion--that every environmental milestone in America was done by Republicans thinks my statement was blathering.

Let's set aside that the "environmental milestones" you were crowing about were exactly what every modern Republican hates and despises--more regulation, more taxes to support said regulations, the expansion of government power to enforce said regulations, etc. The fact you crowed about them means they worked. Our air and water quality have dramatically improved and they did so because the government got involved and didn't leave everything up to the all knowing market.

Any solution to climate change is going to involve sticks and carrots. The sticks will be laws and regulations and taxes that discourage economic behaviors that we know contribute to GHG emissions. I know this works because, well, the rivers in my state no longer catch on fire and burn because of unchecked pollution. It's certainly not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than it was.

We already know conservatives hate laws, regulations, and taxes with a burning passion. We already know that Reagan and Bush and Trump desperately tried to defund and dismantle the EPA because those things--things that we know work--go against their the core conservative political ideology. That you are either unable or unwilling to admit it doesn't change it.

The carrots will be incentives to encourage behaviors that won't contribute (as much) to GHG emissions. That could be any number of things from backing green energy to straight up paying people to ditch their older cars and appliances for newer, more efficient models.

We know from the Obama administration that conservatives don't like the government "picking winners" when it comes to things like green energy (but are entirely OK with tax incentives for oil and gas companies) and conservatives will always oppose any direct payment that gives something to someone who they think doesn't deserve it because they are all rugged individuals who picked themselves up by their own bootstraps and even when they were on food stamps and Welfare nobody helped them out.

Musk is a rich prick who used his family's blood money to literally buy his way into Tesla who appeals to STEMlords for some f*cking reason. The electric vehicle market existed before him and will exist long after he's dead. And people have known that the fatal weakness in renewable energy has been the storage issue longer than he's been alive.

There is also a metric asston of money out there chasing better and cheaper electric cars and better and cheaper batteries in hundreds, if not thousands, of companies that have absolutely nothing to do with Musk.

Pigpen wrote:

And on that front...how do you plan to account for Russia and China. As Paris lists...China is a devoloping nation...so we and the EU should pay the behemoth economy of China who already uses government subsidies to undercut our markets and price points...so lets give them more economic advantage (if that is your answer...make sure you buy stock in programs to teach Chinese...you'll need that...)

I really hate to be the one to break this to you, Pigpen, but America isn't going to be #1 forever, if we ever were. The 21st century isn't going to be the American Century where the entire world basks in the glow of our unrivaled exceptionalism.

China is going to have a larger economy than ours within the decade. And they are going to have the political clout that goes with that economic power. And they are, indeed, still a developing economy with hundreds of millions of citizens who are still literally peasants.

So the idea that we should doom our grandchildren because we don't want to give China "more economic advantage" is a bit laughable. That train left the station back in the 70s.

It also ignores the fact that China isn't an unchanging monolith and that its government has had to change and adapt as the living standards of some of its citizens have improved and its economy expanded. The Chinese government has had to deal--and continues to have to deal--with the environmental impact of its economic expansion with a broad swath of actions and regulations against air and water pollution--much like the US did in the 60s and 70s--because it turns out its citizens--like ours--don't really like living in smoggy cities.

China is going to be affected by global warming as well. It knows it's a problem that has to be addressed. And, ultimately, it knows that not addressing it will cause exactly the internal turmoil and unchecked migration that its been desperately trying to avoid.

Russia is an unstable oligarchy built on oil and gas extraction. And Putin isn't going to live forever. We will deal with them very likely in the same way we dealt with securing their nuclear and biological weapons after the Soviet Union collapsed: we will pay to clean up their sh*t up because not doing so would be exceptionally bad.

Pigpen wrote:

Hey...feel free to answer all of these...but don't forget...how do you get Russia, China and India to go along...because whether you believe it or not...giving a massive economic advantage to them to push for environmental causes simply means we lose the economic war...and since they still may not give a rats arse there is no guarantee they don't push on after the US collapses and take us down the environmental doom road. So...please answer this...

What economic war are you talking about, Pigpen? Countries have economies. They make sh*t. They trade with each other. They want their citizens to have a decent standard of living or at least better than it was before.

China and India are going to have massive economies because they have massive, increasingly educated populations and steadily improving infrastructures. They are America a hundred years ago.

The challenge is how to we help them do what they are going to do--grow their economies and improve their standards of living--without relying on the proliferate use of carbon-based energy sources like we did?

This is the same problem for every country with a developing economy--the path that developed countries took to become developed broke the Earth. We're not going to convince billions of people that they need to get comfortable living a subsistence lifestyle--one that's increasingly negatively impacted by the temperature increases developed economies caused--while the developed economies party it up.

So instead of worrying about "economic wars" or which country has a bigger economy we should be focused on the cost of not doing anything about climate change because that cost is going to be *massive,* as in resource wars, relocating entire cities, shifting agricultural zones, drought, etc.

Pigpen wrote:

I feel strongly on this issue, and for those that would clump the US in there, I can point out a dozen efforts from the Berlin Airlift to the rebuilding of Japan, Germany and Iraq as points where the US has put the world’s needs as a priority at expense in manpower and funding to the United States.

I just had to pull this out of what I can only assume is part of your PhD dissertation to marvel at it.

The US didn't do the Berlin Airlift because it put the world's needs above its own. It was a calculated political, military, and economic show of force to counter the Soviet Union's actions. It was a gigantic f*ck you to Russia that loudly shouted that America had the economic and military capability to support an entire city (well, West Berlin) *by air* and that Russia closing land and sea access wouldn't matter in the least.

Considering the US had just dropped $4 trillion on the war, the airlift's $225 million price tag wasn't exactly causing financial hardships back home.

The cost of rebuilding of Japan ($18 billion in current dollars) and Germany ($182 billion in current dollars) made absolute sense considering a major reason Germany even started WW2 was because of financially crippling war reparations it was forced to pay after WW1. Helping them to rebuild their societies and economies and making them valuable trading partners has paid off in spades and most definitely wasn't done because America's just a good country that puts the needs of other nations in front of their own.

Including Iraq in that list is just *chef's kiss.* All Iraq (and Afghanistan) shows is that America is perfectly willing to blow absolutely staggering amounts of money on absolute stupidity if there's enough political will. I don't even know how much we've currently spent on "killing terrorists there so they don't kill us here," but it was over $6.4 trillion in 2019.

I'm sure someone's even figured out how much our little war on terror has cost the global community in terms of spreading political instability, encouraging sectarian fighting, caring for millions of refugees, and whatnot. It's probably jaw-dropping.

But, again, it does show that America--and developed economies--will spend crazy amounts of money to solve political problems, even ones that are largely figments of their fevered national security imagination. It shows that America is capable of spending large amounts of money over extended periods of time if it thinks an issue is important enough (or if its politicians don't want to look politically weak).

Going briefly back to the Berlin Airlift and Russia, back in 1998 it was calculated that America spent $5.8 trillion (in 1996 dollars) on just its nuclear deterrent during the Cold War. That doesn't even include all the military spending we dropped to narrow the bomber gap, then the missile gap, then the tank gap, etc. nor what we spent on "foreign aid" to box the Soviet Union in or to fight proxy wars. Again, it does show that we're entirely capable of spending crazy amounts of money over long periods of time without any real thought to a pay off other than to prevent something bad from happening.

If America could only make a similar level of investment in fighting climate change. We'd likely see our international stature dramatically increase as we're seen helping other nations and working to solve problems, not cause them. We'd very likely turn some of those developing economies into large and powerful trading partners who would help our own economy and economic influence grow. Those partnerships would also very likely help discover new technologies which, again, would flow to our economy and to our economic and political influence.

Or we can just continue to say that climate change is an intractable problem (if it's even a real problem) because any potential solution might make our economy grow slightly slower than another country's and that it's far worse to not have America be considered exceptional--and the sole global superpower--than to do whatever it takes to slow rising global temperatures which, if left unabated, are going to force us to spend even more money just to avoid the worst impacts.

Pigpen wrote:

Game Cheese and others . Let me be even more blunt - I'm trying to discuss the topic in order to get more agreement and more understanding out there so we can try and find some solution to get us out of this mess we're in. Wow the criticism continues to roll in let me be blunt...

This Republicans small business four has purchased over 800 acres of degraded and destroyed wetland and is rehabbing it in an effort to restore it and protect it not just for a few years but in perpetuity...forever.

Additionally following on with that not only are we trying to get another 400 acres of high-value land but I'm working on my dissertation with the sole goal of trying to increase not only the ecosystem benefit of wetland restoration but the investment potential so that more folks get into it and more wetland is actually protected. Maybe spend a little time and look up the ramsar convention or the value of wetlands...

So let me ask what your contribution has been to combating climate change at a local regional national or global level...?

I stick to medical science, this kind of stuff is out of my depth.

So let me ask what your contribution has been to combating climate change at a local regional national or global level...?

Actively voting against a party of white supremacists, cowards, and traitors who's environmental policy since 2008 has been, "drill, baby, drill."

Why do people bring up China and Russia as Socialist countries? I think only Republicans believe those countries (and Venezuela don't forget) are Socialist havens.

If we are going to compare can we use countries like Denmark and Sweden which are better examples of Democratic Socialist countries to better compare? Thanks

karmajay wrote:

Why do people bring up China and Russia as Socialist countries? I think only Republicans believe those countries (and Venezuela don't forget) are Socialist havens.

If we are going to compare can we use countries like Denmark and Sweden which are better examples of Democratic Socialist countries to better compare? Thanks :)

Because Denmark and Sweden aren't boogeymen.

Reaper81
So...in other words old friend...a zero sum gain...

Reaper81 wrote:
So let me ask what your contribution has been to combating climate change at a local regional national or global level...?

Actively voting against a party of white supremacists, cowards, and traitors who's environmental policy since 2008 has been, "drill, baby, drill."

That and what we personally do is a drop in the bucket

https://www.theguardian.com/sustaina...

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...

Buckets are literally filled with the aggregation of drops. And 800 acres is a pretty big drop, actually, compared to what we can do. That's 1.25 square miles. Wetlands store from 81 to 216 metric tons of CO2 per acre. Pigpen is committing to the management of wetlands that pull between 14000 and 38,000 car year equivalents of CO2 out of the atmosphere.

That's a nice drop. That's the automobile footprint of a 100,000 person city, I'd think...

BTW, one metric ton of CO2 would fill a balloon 10 meters in diameter.

Go work then. Doesn’t excuse coming here and dropping some bullsh*t about how much better Republicans are.

~mod~

Enough. Off-topic, again. Valiant efforts made by those attempting to stay on topic
I appreciate those of you who know not to step in a dogpile when they see it.
I appreciate those willing to educate to whatever extent they're comfortable. However.

If you recognize moving goalposts and gishgallops for what they are, don't...follow them or comply? Just acknowledge it, drop it, and move on? Guys. Come on. Don't dogpile. A lot of the 3+ pages I had to wade through a lot of repeat stuff, it took me all day to read through it between breaks and lunch and after work and I can see why a bunch of people are over it. What's that saying? Never wrestle with a pig...?

NO ONE is obligated to respond to every post, and no one is entitled to a reply, either. Pigpen you can dig as much as you want, but do not continue to do it here.

Learning and growing and questioning things is a wonderful thing, but there's limits to public displays of that, especially when that's not what that space is intended for. After a page or two it's pushing a limit when it's all centered around one person and continues to persist. It's off-topic because that person then becomes the topic. Please don't do that. It's disrespectful to the topic and the thread.

Please be kind to each other and knock it off with the personal attacks and cussing people out, it's tired.

Thanks!

Spoiler:

edit: It shouldn't need to be said with every mod post since it's in the code of conduct, but it was noted that moderation doesn't clarify what goes on behind pm's in regards to conflict resolution. PM's will be sent to individuals regarding general expectations of forum conduct and requests that they avoid commenting to one another or thread for x amount of time in x locations. If said activity continues, further action may be taken, etc, etc, etc. I'm not trying to be flippant, anyone who has received such a message in the past can confirm my messages are essentially the above if they feel so bold. Hope this clarifies the process! -A