Politics of Climate Change (1 Viewer)

[skelly]

I want to hear some discussions of the politics and economics of the phenomenon. I am not asking about the science. For example, real estate prices are not falling on the coastline. I.e. President Obama’s recent Cape Cod purchase. I mean not to troll with this example but both sides of the isles their money does not follow the predictions as far as we are 12 years out from catastrophe.

 

[gangstonc]

I want to hear some discussions of the politics and economics of the phenomenon. I am not asking about the science. For example, real estate prices are not falling on the coastline. I.e. President Obama’s recent Cape Cod purchase. I mean not to troll with this example but both sides of the isles their money does not follow the predictions as far as we are 12 years out from catastrophe.

As far as the Obama example, his house seems to be several feet above sea level. I also don't think we are 12 years from catastrophe.

For me, it's simple. The earth is getting warmer and we should make sure we are doing all we can to not be affecting the weather or the environment in a negative way.

 

[skelly]

What is “all that gangstonc” can do?

And if you were President or in the Congress, what is all that you can do? Where do you start?

 

[maroonedinhsv]

Oh, dang, it's a Global Warming Climate Change thread! Someone contact Stormlover, stat!

 

[KoD]

Seems to me that public opinion is swaying more towards believing in climate change. I don't know how this change has affected policy makers or if there's still an equal amount of resistance now as there was ten years ago

 

[gangstonc]

What is “all that gangstonc” can do?

And if you were President or in the Congress, what is all that you can do? Where do you start?

I think we need to recognize, as a nation, and with our policies, that we can make things better for our kids. Reduce dependency on oil, toughen EPA standards, more subsidies for renewable energy, increase fines on companies that incorrectly dispose of hazardous waste. Things like that.

 

[skelly]

I think we need to recognize, as a nation, and with our policies, that we can make things better for our kids. Reduce dependency on oil, toughen EPA standards, more subsidies for renewable energy, increase fines on companies that incorrectly dispose of hazardous waste. Things like that.

Yeah. It’s almost like immigration, social security, national debt, abortion. I don’t really think politicians much want to solve and resolve as much as fund raise and gain/maintain power.

 

[Jacob]

The vast majority of the "climate change" movement these days doesn't really involve climate change at all. Unfortunately for those legitimately concerned about the future of the planet, the left across the world has hijacked the issue of climate change to push an agenda (climate justice, socialism, etc.) that all but guarantees nothing will get done on the issue.

I've always fallen in the denier camp (and won't discuss why in this thread), but I'm also an engineer, so it's my job to develop solutions to problems. The goal of a solution isn't to make things worse, it's to fix a problem. I have seen very few proposals that wouldn't make things worse. Going to "100% renewable energy" isn't possible given current technologies, and every place on earth that has significantly increased their share of wind/solar has seen their electricity prices go up, as well as making the grids in those locations less stable.

If people see this is a "existential threat" and actually want to work to solve the problem, they'll drop all of the other crap they've attached to it and work strictly to lower GHG emissions. It'd be pretty easy to continue lowering emissions in the US without completely destroying the grid with wind/solar. Make short-term incentives for companies to convert existing coal power plants to gas power. That alone will allow for a nice drop in CO2 output, especially if carbon-capture technology improves any over that time. Don't shut down any existing nuclear power plants (like Diablo Canyon in California), instead work to start building new nuclear power plants. If the technology is there (i'm not sure how far along it is), build the new 4th generation nuclear reactors. If it isn't, build 2nd/3rd generation plants while pouring money into research for 4th generation nuclear. If you want to sprinkle in some wind and solar that's fine, but it is most beneficial in small % (say 5-10% of the grid), so I wouldn't make it a massive part of the plan.

Of course, none of that addresses the rest of the world. You can do all that in the US and significantly reduce emissions, and China/India will be producing more than the US cut in 10-20 years. Which brings around the last point - perhaps it would be more beneficial if a significant portion of the funds that would go to fight climate change be diverted to adaptation as opposed to mitigation. You don't need the rest of the world on the same page to do that.

 

[ghost]

The vast majority of the "climate change" movement these days doesn't really involve climate change at all. Unfortunately for those legitimately concerned about the future of the planet, the left across the world has hijacked the issue of climate change to push an agenda (climate justice, socialism, etc.) that all but guarantees nothing will get done on the issue.

I've always fallen in the denier camp (and won't discuss why in this thread), but I'm also an engineer, so it's my job to develop solutions to problems. The goal of a solution isn't to make things worse, it's to fix a problem. I have seen very few proposals that wouldn't make things worse. Going to "100% renewable energy" isn't possible given current technologies, and every place on earth that has significantly increased their share of wind/solar has seen their electricity prices go up, as well as making the grids in those locations less stable.

If people see this is a "existential threat" and actually want to work to solve the problem, they'll drop all of the other crap they've attached to it and work strictly to lower GHG emissions. It'd be pretty easy to continue lowering emissions in the US without completely destroying the grid with wind/solar. Make short-term incentives for companies to convert existing coal power plants to gas power. That alone will allow for a nice drop in CO2 output, especially if carbon-capture technology improves any over that time. Don't shut down any existing nuclear power plants (like Diablo Canyon in California), instead work to start building new nuclear power plants. If the technology is there (i'm not sure how far along it is), build the new 4th generation nuclear reactors. If it isn't, build 2nd/3rd generation plants while pouring money into research for 4th generation nuclear. If you want to sprinkle in some wind and solar that's fine, but it is most beneficial in small % (say 5-10% of the grid), so I wouldn't make it a massive part of the plan.

Of course, none of that addresses the rest of the world. You can do all that in the US and significantly reduce emissions, and China/India will be producing more than the US cut in 10-20 years. Which brings around the last point - perhaps it would be more beneficial if a significant portion of the funds that would go to fight climate change be diverted to adaptation as opposed to mitigation. You don't need the rest of the world on the same page to do that.

A well reasoned post on this subject Jacob. I am now in the camp of believing humans play a significant part in climate change. I would like to see our country invest in a high speed electric rail system and agree with increasing nuclear power production. However what ever efforts we make in our country will be countered by India and China’s increasing emissions

 

[Matt]

As far as the Obama example, his house seems to be several feet above sea level. I also don't think we are 12 years from catastrophe.

For me, it's simple. The earth is getting warmer and we should make sure we are doing all we can to not be affecting the weather or the environment in a negative way.

Do you know if the climate we have today is the absolute best we could ever have ? If it warmed up some couldn't northern climes have longer growing seasons and thus reduce the number of hungry people in the world ? I think it is very arrogant to say the earths climate must always be like it is at this point in time.

 

[gangstonc]

Do you know if the climate we have today is the absolute best we could ever have ? If it warmed up some couldn't northern climes have longer growing seasons and thus reduce the number of hungry people in the world ? I think it is very arrogant to say the earths climate must always be like it is at this point in time.

There are some positive effects, but nearly all studies show the negatives outweighing the positives.

 

[Kory]

Do you know if the climate we have today is the absolute best we could ever have ? If it warmed up some couldn't northern climes have longer growing seasons and thus reduce the number of hungry people in the world ? I think it is very arrogant to say the earths climate must always be like it is at this point in time.

This is such a weird argument. We don’t have starvation in the world because we don’t have the climate to produce enough food. We have an incredible amount of waste that leads to food shortages.

 

[Matt]

This is such a weird argument. We don’t have starvation in the world because we don’t have the climate to produce enough food. We have an incredible amount of waste that leads to food shortages.

My main point was to say that the climate we have today is the best one for the earth. How does anyone know that ?