At which point we will probably develop technology that turns sunlight into energy using similar mechanisms as plants, thereby consuming co2 and turning it into o2, and carbon square terds (releasing the extra bond), where some bureaucrat will come up with the genius idea of implementing oxygen taxes. (because there will be too much oxygen, which is more a threat to our plants and food supply)
Umm ... you do realize that Oxygen is not a greenhouse gas, don't you? See here for a fairly simple explanation.
Umm ... you do realize that Oxygen is not a greenhouse gas.
After all that I brought up, this is the only thing you quote?
LOL, now i see why i originally quit this thread,
Plus I have some python and spin code to develop so I can evaluate the feasibility of a propeller chip versus the RaspberryPi in a specific application.
The props winning so far, simply due to lower cost, and lower power consumption.
Umm you do realize that too much oxygen has the same effect on HUMANS as too much heat or greenhouse gas in the atmosphere?
That IS what we are really talking about here, right, SAVING HUMAN LIFE?
The end result on HUMAN LIFE on PLANET EARTH!
Too little co2 will cause a ice age, and will also cause plant growth to reduce,
which causes less food, which, last i checked, global starvation of humans, is at epidemic levels.
So how long shall we do the hokey pokey, and you turn your self around, that what its all about.
After all that I brought up, this is the only thing you quote?
Well, I am having difficulty understanding the rest of your posts, so I just answer the bits I think I do understand.
For instance, I have tried to point out that oxygen is not a greenhouse gas, so having more oxygen in the atmosphere does not have the same effect as having more carbon dioxide. It is because you say things like that that I think you may not understand what a greenhouse gas is, and why their effects are significant.
RossH, This is the way I understand Clock Loop's post. Technology may one day solve the CO2 problem but that same beneficial technology will start out as wasteful and crude. Note the prototype transistor.
That beneficial technology may solve the CO2 problem but now we have excess O2. We will then be forced to pay an oxygen tax as opposed to a carbon tax. The imbalance will always be there
My view is that in that world you may have to sneak out at night to forage for food. I prefer freedom.
While I am not really opposed to a fair carbon tax in principle, I am generally opposed to the idea. By the time the special interest groups and politicians get through with it I am sure the actual implementation would be a disaster of epic proportions. One only has to look at the current patent situation and take a look at the money involved in a carbon tax scheme to see that.
The excess O2 argument is a non issue since converting all of the CO2 in atmosphere (0.039% or 390PPM) would result in a miniscule increase in the percentage of O2. The effect of a drastic decrease in the concentration of CO2 on the other hand would have a catastrophic effect on plant growth that would lead to wide spread starvation.
RossH, This is the way I understand Clock Loop's post. Technology may one day solve the CO2 problem but that same beneficial technology will start out as wasteful and crude. Note the prototype transistor.
That beneficial technology may solve the CO2 problem but now we have excess O2. We will then be forced to pay an oxygen tax as opposed to a carbon tax. The imbalance will always be there
My view is that in that world you may have to sneak out at night to forage for food. I prefer freedom.
Ah! Thanks.
So Clock Loop's argument is that we shouldn't solve this problem, because it might just possibly go away by itself. And anyway, if we did manage to solve it, it might just possibly lead to another problem that we would then have to solve as well.
In other words, just another argument for doing nothing.
While I am not really opposed to a fair carbon tax in principle, I am generally opposed to the idea. By the time the special interest groups and politicians get through with it I am sure the actual implementation would be a disaster of epic proportions. One only has to look at the current patent situation and take a look at the money involved in a carbon tax scheme to see that.
Dozens of countries seem to have figured out how to do it without it turning into a "disaster of epic proportions" - see here.
The excess O2 argument is a non issue since converting all of the CO2 in atmosphere (0.039% or 390PPM) would result in a miniscule increase in the percentage of O2.
The effect of a drastic decrease in the concentration of CO2 on the other hand would have a catastrophic effect on plant growth that would lead to wide spread starvation.
The goal of reducing CO2 is just to reduce it to levels comparable to that which have been around for the last 15 million years. The idea that we could somehow "accidentally" reduce CO2 to a level that is too low for plant growth is absurd.
Governments love to impose taxes any excuse will do.
What are we actually tying to do here? Reduce carbon emissions. Doesn't that mean we have to drastically reduce the use of fossil fuels? OK. Let's tax that and drive down demand.
Seems to me that to have any discernible effect. These carbon taxes would have to be huge.
Huge enough to get people to stop using their huge gas guzzling cars.
Huge enough that they move close to work so they can get there on foot or bicycle.
Huge enough that people move into smaller houses that don't need so much heating and/or air conditioning.
Huge enough stop them flying around the world all the time.
And so on and so on.
Basically to make an impact those carbon taxes have to big enough to simulate the effect of the coal, oil, and gas having run out today.
This is a major disturbance to peoples life style and a massive downsizing that they are naturally resistant to.
Governments love to impose taxes any excuse will do.
What are we actually tying to do here? Reduce carbon emissions. Doesn't that mean we have to drastically reduce the use of fossil fuels? OK. Let's tax that and drive down demand.
Seems to me that to have any discernible effect. These carbon taxes would have to be huge.
Huge enough to get people to stop using their huge gas guzzling cars.
Huge enough that they move close to work so they can get there on foot or bicycle.
Huge enough that people move into smaller houses that don't need so much heating and/or air conditioning.
Huge enough stop them flying around the world all the time.
And so on and so on.
Basically to make an impact those carbon taxes have to big enough to simulate the effect of the coal, oil, and gas having run out today.
This is a major disturbance to peoples life style and a massive downsizing that they are naturally resistant to.
Well, I guess I could agree with your first sentence- but everything from there on is wrong.
I posted earlier a cost comparison between non-fossil and fossil-based fuels. It is quite small. To change both business and consumer behavior, and also to drive the innovation required to reduce the costs of alternative energy sources even further, a carbon tax only has to be very modest. Look into the taxes imposed by the dozens of countries that have already designed one (also posted earler), and you willl see this immediately.
In Australia, the cost impost to consumers is around 10% of direct energy costs, plus flow-on effects on other goods and services (which would all be much less than 10%, since the maximum impost on the business would be 10% of their energy costs, etc etc). So the total impost across all goods and services would be well under 10%.
Also, you seem to assume the goal is to eliminate CO2 emissions, by eliminating or drastically reducing fossil fuels. This is not true. Carbon taxes are designed to reduce the use of fossil fuels by making the cost of using them more accurately reflect their long term cost, not their short term cost. This is all that is needed to contain the CO2 emissions to more sustainable levels. In fact, doing this now prevents the need for much more draconian action later.
And no-one is "forced" to give up anything.
Also, as I have said earlier in this thread, it is likely that as demand for fossil fuel slowly wanes, fossil fuel prices will also fall slowly, as the fossil fuel producers try to retain their exceedingly profitable market share. This is likely to make a carbon tax cost-neutral for most energy consumers in the medium term. It may even end up reducing costs in the longer term.
The losers from a carbon tax are not business or consumers at all - it is the fossil fuel producing companies. Which is of course why they are so vehemently opposed to it.
So, lets enjoy it while it lasts, because no matter which way this goes, humans will destroy themselves by global war, long before any environmental change takes place.
All those things you talk about can easily be shown to happen based on previous climate change records of millions of years. Cycles based on solar.
I am talking about major environmental change that causes major human loss, like a global war would.
Good thing we have so much video of what once was, once the wars start from any number of human factors, including carbon taxes...(yea, that could start wars also)
We currently live in a delicate balance not only in the environment, but politically, financially, etc...
So, lets enjoy it while it lasts, because no matter which way this goes, humans will destroy themselves by global war, long before any environmental change takes place.
Environmental change has already taken place - for examples, see here.
Environmental change has already taken place - for examples, see here.
Ross.
Oh, good, then i guess people should start dying left and right from this change.
Any moment now, the planet should hit a threshold where all polar caps suddenly melt(never mind sun cycles and the planets tilt), and the tidal wave of tsunamis wash up on shore to cover most populated areas, which will cause most human made structures to fail, including nuclear reactors, which will release so much radiation into the environment that all large animals die, and the cycle repeats.
Oh, good, then i guess people should start dying left and right then from this change, any moment now.
Its about damn time, humans need to give way to another species to evolve, like prairie dogs.
People are already dying - estimates vary, but the WHO estimates 140,000 a year since the 1970s.
Lolz, not fast enough, with carbon taxes, we can raise that number to somewhere in the millions, even billions.
Democide is the #1 human killer on this planet right now, but this isn't well documented, so, i can't back that up with statistics.
Because governments don't really like to document their own destructive effects from their own policies.
Well then according to your logic, we should implement a cancer tax.
Lolz, not fast enough, with carbon taxes, we can raise that number to somewhere in the millions, even billions.
Democide is the #1 human killer on this planet right now, but this isn't well documented, so, i can't back that up with statistics.
Because governments don't really like to document their own destructive effects from their own policies.
Well then according to your logic, we should implement a cancer tax.
Of course - we spend billions researching cures for cancer, and I agree it is money well spent. So presumably you would agree that once climate change deaths get to - oh, let's say 5 million or so per annum - that we should spend billions on climate change mitigation as well?
Oh - and look - here's another estimate that says by 2010 we were already there.
Heater brings up a set of valid points not easy to dismiss.
As for the U.S.it to the U.S. would mean a massive downsizing of the middle and upper middle-classes. Also gutting of heavy industry and manufacturing as they need lots of baseline energy which green renewable energy sources cannot do for squat. Shut down nuclear and cut out NG and watch how fast our economy shutters to a halt and what happens to our quality of life. Of course the Greens would say that's a good thing.
I suspect a good portion of the East Coast population will also cease to exist when green energy fails to supply enough electricity to heat the homes of a 100 million people. But hey the greens will see it as a win-win as they always planned for population reduction.
And what of suburbia? - The greens being utopian driven socialists for the most part don't get what created this movement to begin with. A declining standard of living in our cities and public schools in 70's. You'd have to force people at the point of a gun to go back to those urban cess pits. We even have minorities fleeing them now because even they can't stand them. In short forget about it. Besides how do you sell people on a much lower quality of life - stuffed in a small apartment, no car, just a government approved bicycle to take you to the government store with green approved products and the local cube farm(if they are lucky enough to have a job).
Yeah people hate commuting but alternative is worse, living in a giant man hive with no chance of a better life.
In short, try to force a move and the utopian promoters of this nonsense will end up taking a dirt nap with past tyrants and bullies. Why? because people will see it for what it is, rounding people up like cattle and putting them in pens. Just like the English aristocrats did to their farmers in the enclosure movement. What the greens want isn't any different. They just call it something else to make it more pleasant and green.
And the wealthy greens like Al Gore, Huffington, the Zuckerbergs or executives from Apple or the Hollywood elite? Well you won't see them living in some 800 sq ft eco-box designed by Chinese serfs. That's what they have in store for YOU. For them, they'll continue on as they are with their coastal mansions, mega-yachts, luxury cars and private jets. All the accoutrements of royalty.
It's like every other political movement and power grab - buffalo the people, convince them the grass is greener on the other side and when they put the new bosses in. They get the shaft.
Orwell would understand them quite well. They are just like Napoleon the pig from Animal Farm.
Heater brings up a set of valid points not easy to dismiss.
On the contrary. Heater's points were easy to dismiss, because they were wrong.
Now that the scientific evidence is beyond reasonable doubt, I think it is quite interesting that it is now those in favor of doing nothing who are resorting to the same overreaction, fear and panic seeding that they once accused climate scientists of doing when they first raised the spectre of dangerous climate change.
Your future Coastline may not inflict Parallax much, them are quite far away from the coast in Rocklin.
DC gone. OK. But - all those Hillbilly's will survive. Good or Bad?
Do not get me wrong. I do enjoy your posts. Sometimes I can not follow them because of not understanding them. Sometimes I agree with your point of view and sometimes I disagree.
But I certainly NOT want a Moderator Monkey to cancel your posts because them are 'political' or - hmm - 'controverse'(spelling?)
The Parallax Forum(s) are very good moderated. Alas we Engineers should be allowed to discuss things - even if controversial - as long as we do it in a friendly manner.
The Dog Video is sort of cool. ElectricAye wise....
I'm guessing that the dog was rescued from a situation in which it was raised as a puppy in a small, possibly circular, pen. It's therefore somewhat hardwired to run in a tight circle. If this is true, then it's a good example of why education is so important. Without proper education, you end up in a meaningless, albeit highly energetic, loop.
Dozens of countries seem to have figured out how to do it without it turning into a "disaster of epic proportions" - see here.
I did say I was not really opposed to a fair carbon tax in principle, but the key word there is fair. I also agree that a simple tax on fuels based on their carbon content would be a reasonable way to go, but it is not particularly fair. Increasing the cost of fuel would increase the cost of just about everything else so low income earners would be burdened with paying a larger percentage of their income as a result of this tax.
I also have doubts about politicians being able to pass up the opportunity for pork barrelling and rewarding their supporters with plum positions in another bureaucracy. Making this a simple tax would not give them that chance, so is unlikely.
The goal of reducing CO2 is just to reduce it to levels comparable to that which have been around for the last 15 million years. The idea that we could somehow "accidentally" reduce CO2 to a level that is too low for plant growth is absurd.
Ross.
Agreed. This answer was in response to Clock Loops post 181, not to imply that the goal was to eliminate CO2 altogether.
On the whole I really am in favor of having the users and producers who profit from the fuels that create the problem pay to solve it.
YOUR points of view are INVALID, because: I SAY SO!
And nope, its not sorted, a tax is completely different than the donations being put into cancer research, of which there are NOT cures, only treatments.
And if these cures or treatments, are working so well, then why are the cancer numbers rising EVERY YEAR?
Also, even with treatment, these people develop a different form of cancer, and eventually die from, CANCER.
Its because they don't have cures, they have treatments.
Its quite clear at this point that you cannot agree to disagree, you must stomp on other peoples points, and say they are flat out wrong.
You may be able to brainwash yourself into thinking things are "final" and "wrong", and "sorted" but the rest of us are just shaking our heads.
LOOP de LOOP!
Its quite clear at this point that you cannot agree to disagree, you must stomp on other peoples points, and say they are flat out wrong.
You may be able to brainwash yourself into thinking things are "final" and "wrong", and "sorted" but the rest of us are just shaking our heads.
We can agree to disagree on what we might do about climate change, but only if you are proposing an alternative that could conceivably address the problem.
There is no room left to agree to disagree on the causes, the impacts, or the need to do something about climate change. The science is rock solid on the first and the evidence is all around you for the second. It is the third that we should now be discussing.
Doing nothing (which I think is what you are proposing) is akin to standing on a railway line and saying "I don't need to do anything, because technology is going to make trains redundant real soon now!".
Regarding climate change solutions, I have this mental image of a few people sitting in a cold room. In the corner is a pile of coal. One person has a solar panel, but no one can really be bothered climbing on the roof. One person has a nuclear reactor, but all the others won't let them run it. One person has an idea to cut down a tree and burn it, but this has been done before and it is now quite a long walk to the nearest tree. Meanwhile it is still freezing cold.
Sooner or later someone is going to light the pile of coal.
I suppose you can put a tax on the coal. Australia has a carbon tax, but at the same time Australia is the 4th largest producer of coal, much of which is exported (along with huge exports of natural gas) and those taxes don't apply to exports. It affects the planet the same regardless of where it is burnt.
So I can't see a carbon tax working unless the whole world has the same tax - and that includes producers 1,2 and 3 on the list (China, USA, India). Each of those countries would no doubt plead a special exemption, because, well, we are all still sitting in this cold room.
I don't know all the answers. But one thing that is new that has never happened before in history - ordinary people from all over the world are able to talk about it and brainstorm ideas. We might not agree, but at least we can share ideas. This discussion on this forum is something that could not have happened even 20 years ago.
So I can't see a carbon tax working unless the whole world has the same tax - and that includes producers 1,2 and 3 on the list (China, USA, India). Each of those countries would no doubt plead a special exemption, because, well, we are all still sitting in this cold room.
China and India already have, or are proposing, national carbon taxes (see here). They understand the problem because they are already seeing the effects.
The USA is doing it on a state-by-state basis. So far only California and Colorado have anything. Maryland has tried, but it is currently under legal dispute.
So the word is getting through ... but far too slowly in the USA.
RossH
There is no room left to agree to disagree on the causes, the impacts, or the need to do something about climate change. The science is rock solid on the first and the evidence is all around you for the second. It is the third that we should now be discussing.
I agree "There is no room left to agree to disagree..." I saw three graphs showing a temperature spike in 98' then leveling off. Those same graphs show a continued rise in CO2. That's why "global warming" became "climate change". You haven't convinced many of us of your point of view. I'll go silent only because your mind is closed. I have this saying that no matter how hard I flap my arms I can't fly. I know...I'm wrong. You win.
I agree "There is no room left to agree to disagree..." I saw three graphs showing a temperature spike in 98' then leveling off. Those same graphs show a continued rise in CO2. That's why "global warming" became "climate change". You haven't convinced many of us of your point of view. I'll go silent only because your mind is closed. I have this saying that no matter how hard I flap my arms I can't fly. I know...I'm wrong. You win.
My mind is not closed, but I will only change it in the face of evidence, and not just wishful thinking. To understand this, you have to understand the sheer scale of the evidence in favor of global warming (or climate change - changing the term does not change the thing), and also the degree of unanimity of opinion amongst the scientific community (whose job it is to review and assess that evidence) that climate change is real, is occurring now, is largely caused by mankind, and is going to be extremely dangerous if we do nothing about it.
And this is not me talking - hereis a link to a summary of the consensus of the world's scientific community, and here is the first paragraph of that summary:
The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.
Also, it is worth posting one other paragraph of this summary:
As of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement, no scientific body of national or international standing rejected the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.
I don't know the specific "three graphs" you are referring to, but by all means post them and we can discuss whether they provide evidence for an alternative view.
... One person has a nuclear reactor, but all the others won't let them run it. ...
I'd be happy to let him use it if he'd put at least a little effort into making it safe first. As long as some keep insisting on building, and still running to this day, inherently unstable fission stations that keep going boom, then there isn't much chance of them being acceptable.
If the reactor core is build to run dry and suffer no damage, then we're in business. Maintenance can be done at leisure. Don't even have to invest in any fail-safes. Makes the whole thing more economical.
I can't wait for fusion to get off the ground.
But one thing that is new that has never happened before in history - ordinary people from all over the world are able to talk about it and brainstorm ideas. We might not agree, but at least we can share ideas. This discussion on this forum is something that could not have happened even 20 years ago.
The Web was a hit already 20 years ago. I remember downloading datasheets with Netscape. Usenet was very big then also. I remember throwing out an idea I thought was quite original and got a lot of replies on the number of examples of where it was already in use. And the acronym I'd chosen was also in use for something else.
One person has an idea to cut down a tree and burn it, but this has been done before and it is now quite a long walk to the nearest tree.
Where I come from there has been sustainable forestry, on a national scale, for many many decades. There is large amounts of land still with native bush cover that will never be logged.
We really don't have to dig up all the fossil fuels.
I suppose you can put a tax on the coal. Australia has a carbon tax, but at the same time Australia is the 4th largest producer of coal, much of which is exported (along with huge exports of natural gas) and those taxes don't apply to exports. It affects the planet the same regardless of where it is burnt.
The tax can be at any point in the chain, it still performs the requisite function. All it takes is for the governments in the consuming countries, and that's where the biggest tax take is, to be the responsible parties of fossil fuel carbon taxing.
This triggers two spin-offs: One is a reduction in demand, which triggers a balancing reduction in producer price, which discourages further investment in digging up even more. The second is, a presumed, investing of those taxes primarily into renewable/alternative research and maybe even the occasional promising development/subsidy.
After all, the fossil fuel industry, the world over, has relied on continuing massive subsidies since day dot. It won't be easy or quick but it is time to start trying to remove those subsidies and at least give the alternatives a slight chance.
Comments
Umm ... you do realize that Oxygen is not a greenhouse gas, don't you? See here for a fairly simple explanation.
LOL, now i see why i originally quit this thread,
Plus I have some python and spin code to develop so I can evaluate the feasibility of a propeller chip versus the RaspberryPi in a specific application.
The props winning so far, simply due to lower cost, and lower power consumption.
Umm you do realize that too much oxygen has the same effect on HUMANS as too much heat or greenhouse gas in the atmosphere?
That IS what we are really talking about here, right, SAVING HUMAN LIFE?
The end result on HUMAN LIFE on PLANET EARTH!
Too little co2 will cause a ice age, and will also cause plant growth to reduce,
which causes less food, which, last i checked, global starvation of humans, is at epidemic levels.
So how long shall we do the hokey pokey, and you turn your self around, that what its all about.
Have fun arguing yourself into a circle.
Well, I am having difficulty understanding the rest of your posts, so I just answer the bits I think I do understand.
For instance, I have tried to point out that oxygen is not a greenhouse gas, so having more oxygen in the atmosphere does not have the same effect as having more carbon dioxide. It is because you say things like that that I think you may not understand what a greenhouse gas is, and why their effects are significant.
Ross.
That beneficial technology may solve the CO2 problem but now we have excess O2. We will then be forced to pay an oxygen tax as opposed to a carbon tax. The imbalance will always be there
My view is that in that world you may have to sneak out at night to forage for food. I prefer freedom.
The excess O2 argument is a non issue since converting all of the CO2 in atmosphere (0.039% or 390PPM) would result in a miniscule increase in the percentage of O2. The effect of a drastic decrease in the concentration of CO2 on the other hand would have a catastrophic effect on plant growth that would lead to wide spread starvation.
Ah! Thanks.
So Clock Loop's argument is that we shouldn't solve this problem, because it might just possibly go away by itself. And anyway, if we did manage to solve it, it might just possibly lead to another problem that we would then have to solve as well.
In other words, just another argument for doing nothing.
Ross.
Ross.
What are we actually tying to do here? Reduce carbon emissions. Doesn't that mean we have to drastically reduce the use of fossil fuels? OK. Let's tax that and drive down demand.
Seems to me that to have any discernible effect. These carbon taxes would have to be huge.
Huge enough to get people to stop using their huge gas guzzling cars.
Huge enough that they move close to work so they can get there on foot or bicycle.
Huge enough that people move into smaller houses that don't need so much heating and/or air conditioning.
Huge enough stop them flying around the world all the time.
And so on and so on.
Basically to make an impact those carbon taxes have to big enough to simulate the effect of the coal, oil, and gas having run out today.
This is a major disturbance to peoples life style and a massive downsizing that they are naturally resistant to.
Well, I guess I could agree with your first sentence- but everything from there on is wrong.
I posted earlier a cost comparison between non-fossil and fossil-based fuels. It is quite small. To change both business and consumer behavior, and also to drive the innovation required to reduce the costs of alternative energy sources even further, a carbon tax only has to be very modest. Look into the taxes imposed by the dozens of countries that have already designed one (also posted earler), and you willl see this immediately.
In Australia, the cost impost to consumers is around 10% of direct energy costs, plus flow-on effects on other goods and services (which would all be much less than 10%, since the maximum impost on the business would be 10% of their energy costs, etc etc). So the total impost across all goods and services would be well under 10%.
Also, you seem to assume the goal is to eliminate CO2 emissions, by eliminating or drastically reducing fossil fuels. This is not true. Carbon taxes are designed to reduce the use of fossil fuels by making the cost of using them more accurately reflect their long term cost, not their short term cost. This is all that is needed to contain the CO2 emissions to more sustainable levels. In fact, doing this now prevents the need for much more draconian action later.
And no-one is "forced" to give up anything.
Also, as I have said earlier in this thread, it is likely that as demand for fossil fuel slowly wanes, fossil fuel prices will also fall slowly, as the fossil fuel producers try to retain their exceedingly profitable market share. This is likely to make a carbon tax cost-neutral for most energy consumers in the medium term. It may even end up reducing costs in the longer term.
The losers from a carbon tax are not business or consumers at all - it is the fossil fuel producing companies. Which is of course why they are so vehemently opposed to it.
Ross.
So, lets enjoy it while it lasts, because no matter which way this goes, humans will destroy themselves by global war, long before any environmental change takes place.
All those things you talk about can easily be shown to happen based on previous climate change records of millions of years. Cycles based on solar.
I am talking about major environmental change that causes major human loss, like a global war would.
Good thing we have so much video of what once was, once the wars start from any number of human factors, including carbon taxes...(yea, that could start wars also)
We currently live in a delicate balance not only in the environment, but politically, financially, etc...
Environmental change has already taken place - for examples, see here.
Ross.
Oh, good, then i guess people should start dying left and right from this change.
Any moment now, the planet should hit a threshold where all polar caps suddenly melt(never mind sun cycles and the planets tilt), and the tidal wave of tsunamis wash up on shore to cover most populated areas, which will cause most human made structures to fail, including nuclear reactors, which will release so much radiation into the environment that all large animals die, and the cycle repeats.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/donnad/this-is-what-earth-will-look-like-if-all-the-ice-melts
Ya know, im actually ok with this, melt away. Sorry parallax, you should move to the mountains.
DC, gone, win, win.
Its about damn time, humans need to give way to another species to evolve, like prairie dogs.
People are already dying - estimates vary, but the WHO estimates 140,000 a year since the 1970s.
Ross.
Lolz, not fast enough, with carbon taxes, we can raise that number to somewhere in the millions, even billions.
Democide is the #1 human killer on this planet right now, but this isn't well documented, so, i can't back that up with statistics.
Because governments don't really like to document their own destructive effects from their own policies.
Well then according to your logic, we should implement a cancer tax.
Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide, accounting for 8.2 million deaths in 2012
I can even give you a WHO link also.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs297/en/
Of course - we spend billions researching cures for cancer, and I agree it is money well spent. So presumably you would agree that once climate change deaths get to - oh, let's say 5 million or so per annum - that we should spend billions on climate change mitigation as well?
Oh - and look - here's another estimate that says by 2010 we were already there.
Whew! Glad we finally got that sorted!
Ross.
As for the U.S.it to the U.S. would mean a massive downsizing of the middle and upper middle-classes. Also gutting of heavy industry and manufacturing as they need lots of baseline energy which green renewable energy sources cannot do for squat. Shut down nuclear and cut out NG and watch how fast our economy shutters to a halt and what happens to our quality of life. Of course the Greens would say that's a good thing.
I suspect a good portion of the East Coast population will also cease to exist when green energy fails to supply enough electricity to heat the homes of a 100 million people. But hey the greens will see it as a win-win as they always planned for population reduction.
And what of suburbia? - The greens being utopian driven socialists for the most part don't get what created this movement to begin with. A declining standard of living in our cities and public schools in 70's. You'd have to force people at the point of a gun to go back to those urban cess pits. We even have minorities fleeing them now because even they can't stand them. In short forget about it. Besides how do you sell people on a much lower quality of life - stuffed in a small apartment, no car, just a government approved bicycle to take you to the government store with green approved products and the local cube farm(if they are lucky enough to have a job).
Yeah people hate commuting but alternative is worse, living in a giant man hive with no chance of a better life.
In short, try to force a move and the utopian promoters of this nonsense will end up taking a dirt nap with past tyrants and bullies. Why? because people will see it for what it is, rounding people up like cattle and putting them in pens. Just like the English aristocrats did to their farmers in the enclosure movement. What the greens want isn't any different. They just call it something else to make it more pleasant and green.
And the wealthy greens like Al Gore, Huffington, the Zuckerbergs or executives from Apple or the Hollywood elite? Well you won't see them living in some 800 sq ft eco-box designed by Chinese serfs. That's what they have in store for YOU. For them, they'll continue on as they are with their coastal mansions, mega-yachts, luxury cars and private jets. All the accoutrements of royalty.
It's like every other political movement and power grab - buffalo the people, convince them the grass is greener on the other side and when they put the new bosses in. They get the shaft.
Orwell would understand them quite well. They are just like Napoleon the pig from Animal Farm.
On the contrary. Heater's points were easy to dismiss, because they were wrong.
Now that the scientific evidence is beyond reasonable doubt, I think it is quite interesting that it is now those in favor of doing nothing who are resorting to the same overreaction, fear and panic seeding that they once accused climate scientists of doing when they first raised the spectre of dangerous climate change.
Ross.
The Dog Video is sort of cool. ElectricAye wise.
Your future Coastline may not inflict Parallax much, them are quite far away from the coast in Rocklin.
DC gone. OK. But - all those Hillbilly's will survive. Good or Bad?
Do not get me wrong. I do enjoy your posts. Sometimes I can not follow them because of not understanding them. Sometimes I agree with your point of view and sometimes I disagree.
But I certainly NOT want a Moderator Monkey to cancel your posts because them are 'political' or - hmm - 'controverse'(spelling?)
The Parallax Forum(s) are very good moderated. Alas we Engineers should be allowed to discuss things - even if controversial - as long as we do it in a friendly manner.
my 2 cents
Mike
Probably worth posting this for those who think "do nothing" is a sensible option.
Ross.
I'm guessing that the dog was rescued from a situation in which it was raised as a puppy in a small, possibly circular, pen. It's therefore somewhat hardwired to run in a tight circle. If this is true, then it's a good example of why education is so important. Without proper education, you end up in a meaningless, albeit highly energetic, loop.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHfpzrDuSYg
I did say I was not really opposed to a fair carbon tax in principle, but the key word there is fair. I also agree that a simple tax on fuels based on their carbon content would be a reasonable way to go, but it is not particularly fair. Increasing the cost of fuel would increase the cost of just about everything else so low income earners would be burdened with paying a larger percentage of their income as a result of this tax.
I also have doubts about politicians being able to pass up the opportunity for pork barrelling and rewarding their supporters with plum positions in another bureaucracy. Making this a simple tax would not give them that chance, so is unlikely.
Agreed. This answer was in response to Clock Loops post 181, not to imply that the goal was to eliminate CO2 altogether.
On the whole I really am in favor of having the users and producers who profit from the fuels that create the problem pay to solve it.
LOOP de LOOP!
And nope, its not sorted, a tax is completely different than the donations being put into cancer research, of which there are NOT cures, only treatments.
And if these cures or treatments, are working so well, then why are the cancer numbers rising EVERY YEAR?
Also, even with treatment, these people develop a different form of cancer, and eventually die from, CANCER.
Its because they don't have cures, they have treatments.
Its quite clear at this point that you cannot agree to disagree, you must stomp on other peoples points, and say they are flat out wrong.
You may be able to brainwash yourself into thinking things are "final" and "wrong", and "sorted" but the rest of us are just shaking our heads.
We can agree to disagree on what we might do about climate change, but only if you are proposing an alternative that could conceivably address the problem.
There is no room left to agree to disagree on the causes, the impacts, or the need to do something about climate change. The science is rock solid on the first and the evidence is all around you for the second. It is the third that we should now be discussing.
Doing nothing (which I think is what you are proposing) is akin to standing on a railway line and saying "I don't need to do anything, because technology is going to make trains redundant real soon now!".
Ross.
Sooner or later someone is going to light the pile of coal.
I suppose you can put a tax on the coal. Australia has a carbon tax, but at the same time Australia is the 4th largest producer of coal, much of which is exported (along with huge exports of natural gas) and those taxes don't apply to exports. It affects the planet the same regardless of where it is burnt.
So I can't see a carbon tax working unless the whole world has the same tax - and that includes producers 1,2 and 3 on the list (China, USA, India). Each of those countries would no doubt plead a special exemption, because, well, we are all still sitting in this cold room.
I don't know all the answers. But one thing that is new that has never happened before in history - ordinary people from all over the world are able to talk about it and brainstorm ideas. We might not agree, but at least we can share ideas. This discussion on this forum is something that could not have happened even 20 years ago.
China and India already have, or are proposing, national carbon taxes (see here). They understand the problem because they are already seeing the effects.
The USA is doing it on a state-by-state basis. So far only California and Colorado have anything. Maryland has tried, but it is currently under legal dispute.
So the word is getting through ... but far too slowly in the USA.
Ross.
My mind is not closed, but I will only change it in the face of evidence, and not just wishful thinking. To understand this, you have to understand the sheer scale of the evidence in favor of global warming (or climate change - changing the term does not change the thing), and also the degree of unanimity of opinion amongst the scientific community (whose job it is to review and assess that evidence) that climate change is real, is occurring now, is largely caused by mankind, and is going to be extremely dangerous if we do nothing about it.
And this is not me talking - here is a link to a summary of the consensus of the world's scientific community, and here is the first paragraph of that summary:
Also, it is worth posting one other paragraph of this summary:
I don't know the specific "three graphs" you are referring to, but by all means post them and we can discuss whether they provide evidence for an alternative view.
Ross.
I'd be happy to let him use it if he'd put at least a little effort into making it safe first. As long as some keep insisting on building, and still running to this day, inherently unstable fission stations that keep going boom, then there isn't much chance of them being acceptable.
If the reactor core is build to run dry and suffer no damage, then we're in business. Maintenance can be done at leisure. Don't even have to invest in any fail-safes. Makes the whole thing more economical.
I can't wait for fusion to get off the ground.
The Web was a hit already 20 years ago. I remember downloading datasheets with Netscape. Usenet was very big then also. I remember throwing out an idea I thought was quite original and got a lot of replies on the number of examples of where it was already in use. And the acronym I'd chosen was also in use for something else.
Where I come from there has been sustainable forestry, on a national scale, for many many decades. There is large amounts of land still with native bush cover that will never be logged.
We really don't have to dig up all the fossil fuels.
The tax can be at any point in the chain, it still performs the requisite function. All it takes is for the governments in the consuming countries, and that's where the biggest tax take is, to be the responsible parties of fossil fuel carbon taxing.
This triggers two spin-offs: One is a reduction in demand, which triggers a balancing reduction in producer price, which discourages further investment in digging up even more. The second is, a presumed, investing of those taxes primarily into renewable/alternative research and maybe even the occasional promising development/subsidy.
After all, the fossil fuel industry, the world over, has relied on continuing massive subsidies since day dot. It won't be easy or quick but it is time to start trying to remove those subsidies and at least give the alternatives a slight chance.