Again, I think we will see a shift towards cleaner energy as we come closer to having severe repercussions. As I said earlier anyways, it's fear mongering to say that two decades more of using non-renewable energy will crush the Earth entirely. Sea levels will rise but coastal cities aren't going to be absorbed by them. Life will move on as it always has.
Now onto your photos. China is a very interesting case. The issue with China isn't so much that they're using these non-renewable energies. It's that having such a high population and amount of production from workers (due to an unbalanced economy that produces way more than it consumes) has caused the usage of non-renewable energy to skyrocket. China is way beyond it's carrying capacity right now and there is very little that can be done to help. Show me a developed country that regularly competes in fair trade that has these issues with pollution and I'd be more inclined to agree with you.
Using coal and oil generates thousands of jobs too. I'm in favor of employers trying to protect their worker but the idea that we should be scared of oil and coal is silly.
They'd be fucked because income doesn't grow on trees and support programs aren't effective and get you 75 cents on the dollar when all is said and done.
I do understand that we rely on the environment for our survival. That's why companies we've seen generally leaning towards non-renewable energy will eventually shift towards green energy, or new ones will rise to take their place. We naturally want to preserve our species. Because if we didn't, we wouldn't be able to keep making money and enjoying life. The issue is that as of right now non-renewable energy is cheaper than renewable energy. It is more common and easier to collect. It has been more adapted to our way of life. In twenty years our cars will run on renewable energy resources. Forcing us into that now just puts a lot of people out of work and gives countries like China the all clear to BUY BUY BUY on bad energy because those producing it lose a huge customer in the US. It just sends it somewhere else.
Again, you're acting like 20 years of oil and coal will kill everyone. It won't. The main places affected will be those that have been polluted to shit due to extremely high populations such as China and India.
You're trying to argue my point that people will starve and die without something by countering it that people will starve and die without something. We need money as much as we need food. I'd argue in some ways we need it more (because we need it to go food, water, shelter.etc)
At some point we will naturally call it quits on non-renewable energy due to the advancement of green energy (making it cheaper and more cost effective) and the concerns that it has on the environment. Private markets will eventually shift (We see it happening already) towards a more environment friendly brand of energy production.
You're just saying climate science is wrong and it won't really be an issue.
Hard to argue with someone who refuses to accept evidence
[editline]29th May 2016[/editline]
How are coastal cities going to be unaffected? Elaborate
Government subsidies aren't the solution. Private investors are. And until they are thoroughly convinced that green energy is a better option they won't bite on it. The government can't afford to shell out billions on green energy. How are they supposed to provide for these now jobless workers from the non-renewable energy fields when they've spent all the tax money (and they also lost a fair portion of that tax money due to unemployment) on subsidizing green energy?
I'm not refuting evidence. I'm saying it's overblown.
They will be affected. They won't be wholesomely consumed by the ocean like many people say they will though.
And how are the poor you're supposedly concerned with supposed to eat in a world where food is scarcer than money because we made bad choices twenty years ago? If food is more expensive due to being more scarce the poor will starve and die and then all your concern was for naught.
[editline]29th May 2016[/editline]
So you are saying climate science is wrong then. Okay.
how could the totality of climate science possibly hope to compete with chernobyl426's gut feeling?
I mean one is based on decades of research by thousands of experts, but the other is based on a layman's feelings. You can't get more reliable than an uneducated person's feelings.
You're once again completely misconstruing my argument. Not every scientist out there believes 20 years of using non-renewable energy turns the world into a barren wasteland. Also, it's not a gut feeling. Way to respond without having any actual argument against me. If you want to provide an argument that we can somehow provide for the people that will become unemployed due to regulations then by all means hit me with it.
[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;50415790]You're once again completely misconstruing my argument. Not every scientist out there believes 20 years of using non-renewable energy turns the world into a barren wasteland. Also, it's not a gut feeling. Way to respond without having any actual argument against me. If you want to provide an argument that we can somehow provide for the people that will become unemployed due to regulations then by all means hit me with it.[/QUOTE]
It isn't about the world being turned into a barren wasteland. It's about a self feeding warming cycle that gets harder to stop the longer we wait to do something about it, which will result in higher sea levels, less farming land, increased ocean acidification that will lead to mass extinctions as the bottom of the ocean's food chain is demolished, more extreme weather, and countless other issues.
You're placing short term employment over the long term well being of the entirety of humanity. You're selling your car for gasoline.
I appreciate your metaphor, but shutting down on non-renewable energy is having a car without gasoline (quite literally haha).
If you believe that 20 years is too long for us to wait, then fine. I'd simply counter that the market will have us transitioning to green energy by 15 years then. And those people who have been in non-renewable energy will have the time to find new sources of income to provide for themselves and their family (and those who cannot will be swept out by the harsh reality of capitalism.)
[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;50415924]I appreciate your metaphor, but shutting down on non-renewable energy is having a car without gasoline (quite literally haha).
If you believe that 20 years is too long for us to wait, then fine. I'd simply counter that the market will have us transitioning to green energy by 15 years then. And those people who have been in non-renewable energy will have the time to find new sources of income to provide for themselves and their family (and those who cannot will be swept out by the harsh reality of capitalism.)[/QUOTE]
isn't it amazing how when presented with the possibility that the free market might not be proactive enough to avoid long term threats you just become spontaneously more optimistic
you're just blindly assuming whatever scenario is most convenient for you is what's going to happen, despite all available evidence pointing in the opposite direction
What if the free market just continues to do what's most profitable in the short term while ignoring long term stability, like it has for the last century? What's your plan then?
chernobyl426,
I have yet to see a single source for any of your arguments
dont act surprised that we doubt you overturned years of research from thousands of scientists all by thinking in your head for 30 seconds
[QUOTE=Mingebox;50415470]You seem to be proving my point. We can't just wait around until "the money is in it" and hope it won't be too late. You wouldn't start building a levee during a hurricane would you? Green technology should be developed as fast as possible so that it's efficient and ubiquitous [I]before [/I]we need it.[/QUOTE]
You must have misinterpreted. By throwing billions of dollars in taxpayer money into the issue we are attempting to create a new market out of thin air. If companies that produce "green technology" wouldn't survive without government subsidies, how is expanding such a program going to produce a self-sufficient economy? We would become cyclically dependent on tax revenue in order to sustain our "green" society. The markets, having realized the potential profitability of eco-friendly technology, must be left alone to develop it into a workable form. It may take longer than is preferred, but at the end we will have a far more structurally and fiscally sound economy as a result--and one that is not at the mercy of an over-reaching government.
[QUOTE=Chonch;50416640]You must have misinterpreted. By throwing billions of dollars in taxpayer money into the issue we are attempting to create a new market out of thin air. If companies that produce "green technology" wouldn't survive without government subsidies, how is expanding such a program going to produce a self-sufficient economy? We would become cyclically dependent on tax revenue in order to sustain our "green" society. The markets, having realized the potential profitability of eco-friendly technology, must be left alone to develop it. It may take longer than is preferred, but at the end we will have a far more structurally and fiscally sound economy as a result--and one that is not at the mercy of an over-reaching government.[/QUOTE]
and we'll also have global mass migration from the third world, worldwide famine, a dead ocean, and catastrophically destructive and unpredictable weather
gg, wp
[QUOTE=Chonch;50416640]You must have misinterpreted. By throwing billions of dollars in taxpayer money into the issue we are attempting to create a new market out of thin air. If companies that produce "green technology" wouldn't survive without government subsidies, how is expanding such a program going to produce a self-sufficient economy? We would become cyclically dependent on tax revenue in order to sustain our "green" society. The markets, having realized the potential profitability of eco-friendly technology, must be left alone to develop it into a workable form. It may take longer than is preferred, but at the end we will have a far more structurally and fiscally sound economy as a result--and one that is not at the mercy of an over-reaching government.[/QUOTE]
I don't know why I need to even say anything when your shortsightedness and absurdly skewed priorities demonstrates my exact point.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;50416668]and we'll also have global mass migration from the third world, worldwide famine, a dead ocean, and catastrophically destructive and unpredictable weather
gg, wp[/QUOTE]
Enlighten me as to by what thought process you came to these rather drastic (dare I say, sensationalist) conclusions.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;50416763]I don't know why I need to even say anything when your shortsightedness and absurdly skewed priorities demonstrates my exact point.[/QUOTE]
I must admit at this junction that your "point" must either cover a great many topics that I did not address in my post, or be entirely transparent. Perhaps you should elaborate further than what essentially amounts to "are you kidding me?".
I'll simplify mine for you: Climate change is real and is progressing quickly. We need to invest in technology that can avert further destruction of the environment and work towards reversing the damage that has been done. That said, I think we would enjoy far more a green economy built on the back of private funding and the will of the free market than one beholden to the public. Depending 100% on government intervention through all stages of attempting to avert a global catastrophe (if that is what is coming) will set a bad precedent tipped in favor of a more powerful central government. I feel that is wrong.
[editline]sorry[/editline]
I'd like to apologize to anyone reading this thread for the off-topic discussion.
[QUOTE=Chonch;50417051]Enlighten me as to by what thought process you came to these rather drastic (dare I say, sensationalist) conclusions.
I must admit at this junction that your "point" must either cover a great many topics that I did not address in my post, or be entirely transparent. Perhaps you should elaborate further than what essentially amounts to "are you kidding me?".
I'll simplify mine for you: Climate change is real and is progressing quickly. We need to invest in technology that can avert further destruction of the environment and work towards reversing the damage that has been done. That said, I think we would enjoy far more a green economy built on the back of private funding and the will of the free market than one beholden to the public. Depending 100% on government intervention through all stages of attempting to avert a global catastrophe (if that is what is coming) will set a bad precedent tipped in favor of a more powerful central government. I feel that is wrong.
[editline]sorry[/editline]
I'd like to apologize to anyone reading this thread for the off-topic discussion.[/QUOTE]
heres the thing, it is not in the free markets [I]immediate[/I] interest to do something about climate change. by the time it begins to heavily impact the whole system, it will be too late.
but what would it matter, all the millionaires and billionaires will be able to afford to live the rest of their lives on yachts or something.
Too late? Hopefully not.
I wonder if science will ever be able to find a way to reverse the effects. With all the advancement I've seen in history I don't doubt science + time can solve a lot of things, but I do understand it's not a good idea to bet on that
[QUOTE=Chonch;50417051]
I'll simplify mine for you: Climate change is real and is progressing quickly. We need to invest in technology that can avert further destruction of the environment and work towards reversing the damage that has been done. That said, I think we would enjoy far more a green economy built on the back of private funding and the will of the free market than one beholden to the public. Depending 100% on government intervention through all stages of attempting to avert a global catastrophe (if that is what is coming) will set a bad precedent tipped in favor of a more powerful central government. I feel that is .[/QUOTE]
It would be great if people would band together and develop these technologies on their own and if people bought more sensible products not based solely on price, but on sustainability. This doesn't seem to be the way humans behave though.
While you might be able to make an argument for letting technologies or solutions standing on their own merits, this argument fails to account for the reality of our current situation. For decades world powers have dumped more into oil, gas, and coal than they have into most renewable sources combined. You can't undo that government intervention. You can't undo that artificial market restriction/disturbance just by cutting funding for everything. How do you propose restoring balance to the market while minimizing harmful outcomes?
[QUOTE=Chonch;50417051]
I must admit at this junction that your "point" must either cover a great many topics that I did not address in my post, or be entirely transparent. Perhaps you should elaborate further than what essentially amounts to "are you kidding me?".
I'll simplify mine for you: Climate change is real and is progressing quickly. We need to invest in technology that can avert further destruction of the environment and work towards reversing the damage that has been done. That said, I think we would enjoy far more a green economy built on the back of private funding and the will of the free market than one beholden to the public. Depending 100% on government intervention through all stages of attempting to avert a global catastrophe (if that is what is coming) will set a bad precedent tipped in favor of a more powerful central government. I feel that is wrong.
[/QUOTE]
My point is your mindset is exactly what helps cause problems like this in the first place. The mindset of passively waiting and having faith everything will sort itself out, and the mindset ignoring impending disaster because nothing could ever, ever be worse than ~big government~.
[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;50415924]
If you believe that 20 years is too long for us to wait, then fine. I'd simply counter that the market will have us transitioning to green energy by 15 years then.[/QUOTE]
Literal blind faith in a deified "free market". Bad things gonna happen in 20 years? Free market will take care of us. Oh 15 years? I just adjusted it, we will be fine.
[QUOTE=Chonch;50417051]Enlighten me as to by what thought process you came to these rather drastic (dare I say, sensationalist) conclusions.
I must admit at this junction that your "point" must either cover a great many topics that I did not address in my post, or be entirely transparent. Perhaps you should elaborate further than what essentially amounts to "are you kidding me?".
I'll simplify mine for you: Climate change is real and is progressing quickly. We need to invest in technology that can avert further destruction of the environment and work towards reversing the damage that has been done. That said, I think we would enjoy far more a green economy built on the back of private funding and the will of the free market than one beholden to the public. Depending 100% on government intervention through all stages of attempting to avert a global catastrophe (if that is what is coming) will set a bad precedent tipped in favor of a more powerful central government. I feel that is wrong.
[editline]sorry[/editline]
I'd like to apologize to anyone reading this thread for the off-topic discussion.[/QUOTE]
I don't understand fear of big government. Smaller government just leads to more corporate control (not that big government is immune to that, just more resistant) , you're replacing a society-focused controlling entity with a profit-focused one.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
