Hot Under The Collar (Climate Change Chatter)

Tools    





there's a frog in my snake oil
Here's a great look at the history of C02 climate science, starting way back in 1859.

A good if long read for those who are interested
__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here



I wouldn't want to read that article G... Way to many factoids in there I'm sure.

Anywho, just saw a few really good flicks that bookend each other nicely. The first is called An Inconvenient Truth which many have heard of and of course only a very few have actually seen or taken at all seriously. The second film which was really quite good is called The Age of Stupid, where a man who apparently has survived some sort of natural holocaust is living in a tower powered by some really cool looking windmills spends a good deal of his time looking at archival footage of happenings that are actually going on now but in his time happened about 50 years ago. And of course the big question he asks is: Why didn't we do anything to stop or at least try to slow down this crisis?

I guess I'm in danger of becoming an environmentalist if I don't stop watching and reading about these goings on in the world today. I gotta say though I still feel always out-numbered and always out-gunned. Fact is, 1% of the scientific community no longer believes in global warming but a startling 60% of the average population thinks its total crap. And as long as that number stays that way the big guns behind the pollution will continue to profit and life will continue to decline for every life system on this finite planet.
__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...



I mentioned this before, but the idea that money is what's preventing this just doesn't wash. There's scads of money to be made in green energy, and we've already seen numerous examples of people taking as much advantage of that as they do with anything else. Possibly moreso, because of the political motives behind most of it. This is all true and demonstrable regardless of what you think of the underlying science.

As for that underlying science: I think people confuse the idea of warming with the debate about what ought to be done. They're nowhere near the same thing. Arguments that the earth is warming only target one group of people: those who think it isn't warming. And there are such people. And there are some who think it is, but don't think we're responsible. And there there are some who think we're only somewhat responsible. And then there are some who think we're mostly responsible, but that that doesn't mean we can reverse the effects. And then there are some who think we're mostly responsible, can reverse or mitigate the effects, but need to find a plausible way to do it that doesn't carelessly jostle trillions of dollars in a way that has shown itself, repeatedly, to be rife for opportunistic abuses based on political grandstanding.

What do claims that the earth is warming actually have to say to these other positions? Not much, that I can see. I get why this happens; the idea that the earth is warming is about a billion times easier to defend than the other gradations mentioned above. But it doesn't tell us how to respond to the fact, even though people seem to translate their conclusion about warming into all the other questions, even though it's only addressing a narrow part of the issue.



Wow, I have no idea how I didn't see this post before. Sorry about that.

I guess you have a way of getting me to argue even if I don't want to. You're a good egg and I want to save you I guess.
Thanks...I think. But part of you must want to, if you wade in, yeah? And a little argument among the mutually respectful never hurt anything. How else are we going to get at the truth? Certainly not by just exposing ourselves to the like-minded. Certainly not by only watching documentaries that display one side of the issue. Science exposes theory to experiment, and the legal system makes argument the determining factor in life and death.

Arguments get a bad rap, in other words. Generally because most people can't argue without being complete tools about it.

China only pollutes a bit more and considering how many more (over a BILLION) people there is there I'd say they have a long way to go before they can cover the earth with as much pollution as the US already has. Seriously, its not even close. Now of course with well over a billion Chinese mostly burning Coal for power it won't take them long to not only "catch up" but far surpass us. So, I guess that's good, we won't be first anymore.
Aye, that's the idea: this is a long-term problem, and long-term, China and India represent the biggest problem. That's the only point I was making. So, I pose the question again: should they stop? Should they stop their industrial and technological revolutions? Do we have the right to tell developing countries they can't improve their standard of living that way?

Please check out some of these numbers and facts. That first blog post is just an article but do check out a bunch of the stuff on the sides, there's a lot of good stuff and that's just one little page on the intraweb.

And while I do agree that we're not capable of fixing this on our own it is true that the vast majority of the world is taking our lead and never before has so many countries had so much of our industry in their own environments. Again, you can look it up.
"Taking our lead"--what does that mean? Are you suggesting that, if we embrace renewable energy, less developed countries are actually going to stop using fossil fuels, just because we're doing it?

Even if we assume that's somehow plausible, what would our "lead" look like? Because renewable energy is not even close to being able to handle even a small fraction of our use. And I'm not talking about SUVs and other decadent luxuries. I'm talking about the basics. Most people who talk about renewable energy never concern themselves with this, but oil is many orders of magnitude more efficient than anything else. Our chief impediment to switching is not political will power or greedy oil-soaked CEOs, it's flippin' physics.

For anyone interested in the mathematics underpining this, please check out Robert Bryce's stuff. It cuts through a whole lot of the rhetoric about renewable energy.

We don't have to tell them to, we could just do it for them. Whether we do it by being a large part of their economy which is already the case in many countries or by force. Is that too strong? No. We use force for many things and will continue to. Why not use it to actually help the planet?
What do you mean "do it for them"?

You say we don't have the right. Do we have the right to go into a country and topple a government? And yet, we do those things in the name of freedom. Why wouldn't we also do things in the name of the planet?
And a whole lot of people were pretty furious about that, yeah? And what we did is actually way, way less intrusive than dictating how an entire foreign economy is going to work. That's actual, ongoing imperialism; it's not in the same stratosphere as nation-building, even if you find nation-building to be a rather foolish thing.

If it's too tiresome to go through each point or answer each question (believe me, I sympathize), I can boil them all down to one request: to describe, specifically, what we should do. Because I think "take the lead" sounds a lot better than "hope people follow our example, in direct contrast to their own interest," and "do it for them" sounds a lot better than "continually force multiple foreign nations to run their countries the way we think they ought to be run."



there's a frog in my snake oil
I mentioned this before, but the idea that money is what's preventing this just doesn't wash. There's scads of money to be made in green energy, and we've already seen numerous examples of people taking as much advantage of that as they do with anything else. Possibly moreso, because of the political motives behind most of it. This is all true and demonstrable regardless of what you think of the underlying science.
*EDITED for brevity*

Fossil fuels are, in the main, more profitable than renewables. How is that profit margin not an issue when it comes to transfering to a renewable energy infrastructure?

(Granted it's not the only issue, but it's certainly an issue).

Originally Posted by Yods
As for that underlying science: I think people confuse the idea of warming with the debate about what ought to be done....
Certainly it's not enough to just say 'the world is warming' and expect that to inform policy etc. But I'm not sure who's actually doing that. At a policy level.

Sure the public debate can get hung up on that. But the public debate is capable of getting hung up on all sorts of things. Like cats. And Al Gore's face. And vehement assertions that 'it's all down to the moon and I have the calculations to prove it'. The public debate can get a bit silly



Wow, I have no idea how I didn't see this post before. Sorry about that.
No problemo.

Thanks...I think. But part of you must want to, if you wade in, yeah? And a little argument among the mutually respectful never hurt anything. How else are we going to get at the truth? Certainly not by just exposing ourselves to the like-minded. Certainly not by only watching documentaries that display one side of the issue. Science exposes theory to experiment, and the legal system makes argument the determining factor in life and death.

Arguments get a bad rap, in other words. Generally because most people can't argue without being complete tools about it.
I admit, sometimes I want to argue only because deep down I do understand that in today's society one must be good at arguing if only to get a few to listen to what I'm trying to say. For the most part I find it tedious and I rarely see anyone changing someone else's mind because of it. In our case, I doubt very much you or I will ever change each other's mind. While we agree on many things I think at our very cores we are based on an entirely different belief system. And as much as I'd love to believe that I only see one side of an issue... if that were really true then I doubt very much that I would even bother to argue at all.

Aye, that's the idea: this is a long-term problem, and long-term, China and India represent the biggest problem. That's the only point I was making. So, I pose the question again: should they stop? Should they stop their industrial and technological revolutions? Do we have the right to tell developing countries they can't improve their standard of living that way?
I suspect that you already know the answer to this or you wouldn't even ask. They can't stop, its the only thing they can do. The system of life on this planet can only be sustained in its current form by continuing down this terribly polluted path. I disagree with you however that they represent the "biggest problem". They are well ahead of us in many areas they are spending much, much more money going green than we are right now. To try and get a handle on this problem that they are facing. The thing is though, they actually seem willing to do it while we continue to make excuses not to.

What is going to be really interesting is to see if they can really do it. They can make a huge difference and perhaps even change the world if what they are attempting to do works. And we'll get to see most of this in our lifetime, should be very interesting to see how they do. This is really interesting news from China's biggest city.


"Taking our lead"--what does that mean? Are you suggesting that, if we embrace renewable energy, less developed countries are actually going to stop using fossil fuels, just because we're doing it?
That is exactly what I mean. Many, many countries worldwide aspire to be "just like America" and many of them would embrace any number of greener, healthier ways of living if we just led them.

Even if we assume that's somehow plausible, what would our "lead" look like? Because renewable energy is not even close to being able to handle even a small fraction of our use. And I'm not talking about SUVs and other decadent luxuries. I'm talking about the basics. Most people who talk about renewable energy never concern themselves with this, but oil is many orders of magnitude more efficient than anything else. Our chief impediment to switching is not political will power or greedy oil-soaked CEOs, it's flippin' physics.

For anyone interested in the mathematics underpining this, please check out Robert Bryce's stuff. It cuts through a whole lot of the rhetoric about renewable energy.
See, this is where we argue about who's facts are the "right" facts. Are you aware that Bryce works and gets funded primarily by Exxon? Plus; some of his claims are just flat not true. It seems your mind is already made up. You believe that Oil and only Oil is the answer and how can you be wrong? All the "facts" point to you being right. I feel for you Chris, you are being misled. I know you can't believe this, but its true. And something else that I imagine you may tee-hee about as I'm sure many others do is the fact that someday; we really are going to run of the stuff that runs the entire world. Probably a lot sooner than most of us care to believe we will too. But the vast majority of people continue on with their daily lives wishing gas was cheaper and just hoping that someday they'll find oil next door to them so that those pesky gas prices will finally go down "and this time they'll stay down by god!". No, it won't happen. In another few years we'll be paying $5.00 bucks a gallon and then $6.00. Why do you suppose that is? Is it because there's somebody out there driving up the price? Really?

And I see your Bryce and raise you a Shah.

I just wish I could've been smart enough to get an electric car back when they were cheap, oh wait, they've never been cheap and in fact, (I learned this from one of those docs you rarely watch) GM killed the electric car just a few short years ago. Why would they do that? A group of people took over a MILLION dollars down to the lot after the cars had been recalled and tried to buy the cars from them and were refused. Why? I thought auto makers wanted to make money, instead the cars were all taken and crushed. Ridiculous. There's not enough oil in an electric car is the problem.


What do you mean "do it for them"?
If we as a government can force or impose our will against another nation over oil or any other natural resource we want, we can easily do it for going greener. We simply play the same political hard ball that is played now and tell them the cost of doing business with the US means doing things a certain way.

And a whole lot of people were pretty furious about that, yeah? And what we did is actually way, way less intrusive than dictating how an entire foreign economy is going to work. That's actual, ongoing imperialism; it's not in the same stratosphere as nation-building, even if you find nation-building to be a rather foolish thing.
In what way are we not dictating how Iraq's economy is going to work in the future? How are we not re-building their entire infrastructure? How many companies from Iraq are doing real work, noticeable work there, besides Halliburton and all the many other American companies that are there?

If it's too tiresome to go through each point or answer each question (believe me, I sympathize), I can boil them all down to one request: to describe, specifically, what we should do. Because I think "take the lead" sounds a lot better than "hope people follow our example, in direct contrast to their own interest," and "do it for them" sounds a lot better than "continually force multiple foreign nations to run their countries the way we think they ought to be run."
See, I agree with all of this... And it really isn't difficult to "lead the way". All we have to do is set out to get each and every person to a carbon emission of zero in ten to fifteen years. Once we do that we begin to embrace real change.



*EDITED for brevity*
Thus imbuing your response with the soul of wit!

Fossil fuels are, in the main, more profitable than renewables. How is that profit margin not an issue when it comes to transfering to a renewable energy infrastructure?

(Granted it's not the only issue, but it's certainly an issue).
Well, the profit margins are always better on existing technologies, yet somehow, without anyone forcing them to do it, businesses manage to bring new ones to market all the time.

But they're definitely a factor; no argument there. My real issue is with the way it contradicts the sister arguments that are almost invariably made alongside it. Fossil fuels are more profitable because they're just a way better energy source, not because of a conspiracy. Unless, again, we're naming physics as a co-conspirator. I'd love to see that subpoena. Can I make some kind of pun here about the "gravity" of the situation?

I guess what I'm saying is, while I can disagree with both viewpoints (I'm clever like that), people are contradicting themselves if they want to say that both a) fossil fuels make more economic sense than renewable sources and b) oil companies secretly killed the electric car, are suppressing this or that, etc. They can't both be true. If a) is true, then there's no mystery or secret about the conspiracies in b) and the reasons for them are entirely unsexy.

Certainly it's not enough to just say 'the world is warming' and expect that to inform policy etc. But I'm not sure who's actually doing that. At a policy level.

Sure the public debate can get hung up on that. But the public debate is capable of getting hung up on all sorts of things. Like cats. And Al Gore's face. And vehement assertions that 'it's all down to the moon and I have the calculations to prove it'. The public debate can get a bit silly
Aye, and that public debate is precisely what I'm referencing. The overwhelming majority of these arguments seem to be just about the warming, with the unstated implication that this debate is somehow also a proxy for whatever environmentalist policy may follow from it.

This is a little more serious than the mere fact that sometimes political debates turn on superficial things. This is an awful lot of people who feel very passionately about the issue, yet spend almost no time arguing the most meaningful point of contention. It strikes me as a pretty big blind spot in the discourse.



I admit, sometimes I want to argue only because deep down I do understand that in today's society one must be good at arguing if only to get a few to listen to what I'm trying to say. For the most part I find it tedious and I rarely see anyone changing someone else's mind because of it. In our case, I doubt very much you or I will ever change each other's mind. While we agree on many things I think at our very cores we are based on an entirely different belief system. And as much as I'd love to believe that I only see one side of an issue... if that were really true then I doubt very much that I would even bother to argue at all.
Wanna hear a secret? I'm not trying to change your mind. I mean, if I do, woo-hoo, but that's not my goal. My goal in this discussion is to get you (and anyone reading) to stop positing conspiracies and start looking at the underlying physics and economics of energy. Because I know that, once that happens, it will be impossible not to recognize the real problems we're facing, which are primarily problems of technology.

Re: different belief systems. I wouldn't say "entirely." In fact, we share a pretty important belief in common: we both believe that people are broken. The difference is whether or not you take the next step after that, which is thinking they can still be salvaged. Though admittedly not by anything here on earth.

I suspect that you already know the answer to this or you wouldn't even ask. They can't stop, its the only thing they can do. The system of life on this planet can only be sustained in its current form by continuing down this terribly polluted path. I disagree with you however that they represent the "biggest problem". They are well ahead of us in many areas they are spending much, much more money going green than we are right now. To try and get a handle on this problem that they are facing. The thing is though, they actually seem willing to do it while we continue to make excuses not to.

What is going to be really interesting is to see if they can really do it. They can make a huge difference and perhaps even change the world if what they are attempting to do works. And we'll get to see most of this in our lifetime, should be very interesting to see how they do. This is really interesting news from China's biggest city.
Well, first off, I think the most interesting thing about China's investments in green energy is that they're doing all that, and they still pollute more. And as that article details, their emissions aren't likely to decline even two decades from now. Secondly, you seem to be making the assumption that investing in green energy guarantees results, but the whole argument here is that it doesn't. Sinking a billion dollars into a new energy is great...if it works out. If it doesn't, or if it produces only marginal results, then it's a waste. So saying they're "well ahead of us," when they're really just spending more, is kind of like saying the race is won by the guy exerting the most effort rather than the guy who's moving faster.

Thirdly, the fact that China's spending a ton on this doesn't mean we aren't spending quite a bit, too. You say we "make excuses not to" get a handle on things, but what's this based on? We spend billions on it. Almost a fifth of a trillion over the last few decades. And we do it despite getting steadily crappy results. Technically, you can argue that we need to do more, but I don't see how someone could possibly say that this is being ignored.

That is exactly what I mean. Many, many countries worldwide aspire to be "just like America" and many of them would embrace any number of greener, healthier ways of living if we just led them.
Well, we have a major difference of opinion here, then. Not only do I not think this would work, but I don't think it has even a small chance of working. Many countries aspire to be "just like America" in the sense that they want to be wealthy and free. Those are the ends to which we are emulated. If a given American policy does not serve those ends, it won't be emulated.

See, this is where we argue about who's facts are the "right" facts. Are you aware that Bryce works and gets funded primarily by Exxon?
Actually, he works for a think tank which gets some money from the fossil fuel industry. Specifically, his employer has gotten 2.5% of their funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade. But somehow that's morphed into him working for Exxon, specifically, and being "primarily" funded by them?

That said, yes, I was aware of this, and I categorically reject the idea that we can play six-degrees-of-dinero with someone in order to earn the right to ignore the substance of their arguments. If we're going to start doing that, your first link has to go with it, because Media Matters is funded by all sorts of left-wing donors and has an admitted agenda. But of course, this doesn't mean they're wrong about him, does it? No, it doesn't. And it doesn't mean Bryce is wrong, either. Financial incentives are good for knowing when to scrutinize something more, or to know why someone may cling to a clearly incorrect idea. But they don't tell you more than that.

You say that "this is where we argue about who's facts are the 'right' facts." But shouldn't that be the entire argument? Why are we arguing motive instead?

It seems your mind is already made up. You believe that Oil and only Oil is the answer and how can you be wrong?
I don't think this at all, actually. I'm a big proponent of nuclear power, which is conspicuously left out of most of these discussions. It seems like a natural point of compromise, and I don't know why more environmentalists don't embrace it.

I think oil is the only answer now because that's the actual underlying physical reality: oil is insanely useful and potent and we currently have nothing comparable. But I can answer your rhetorical question all the same: I could be wrong if you could show me how it's economically feasible to dramatically shift to renewable energy sources.

All the "facts" point to you being right. I feel for you Chris, you are being misled. I know you can't believe this, but its true. And something else that I imagine you may tee-hee about as I'm sure many others do is the fact that someday; we really are going to run of the stuff that runs the entire world. Probably a lot sooner than most of us care to believe we will too. But the vast majority of people continue on with their daily lives wishing gas was cheaper and just hoping that someday they'll find oil next door to them so that those pesky gas prices will finally go down "and this time they'll stay down by god!". No, it won't happen. In another few years we'll be paying $5.00 bucks a gallon and then $6.00. Why do you suppose that is? Is it because there's somebody out there driving up the price? Really?
Okay, but...what's actually being argued in this paragraph? I see the claim that oil will run out at some point. Okay. I see that it will be a lot sooner than most of us care to believe. I don't think anyone knows that (people have been predicting Peak Oil for a very long time), but it's possible. And you say a lot of people will wish gas were cheaper. Yup, true. So what? What does any of this have to do with renewable energy?

I feel like a huge part of the debate about energy has really just become a litany or complaints about the oil industry. Or, even less productive, a list of complaints about the perceived mindset of other citizens. But the debate is what to do, right? So, if you say oil is bad, I say: it's not bad, but even assuming it is, what would be good? Environmentalists can reel off huge lists of things they hate without even thinking (and they often do; ba-dum-chink! ), but most don't seem to have really considered the viability of the alternatives.


And I see your Bryce and raise you a Shah.
I can gladly go through these point by point if you want, but it doesn't seem that any of them dispute the point I'm trying to make here. The first is the only one that tries, and it's way too vague to even try to contradict properly. That said, I notice off the top of my head that it's linking to a document by a firm that does renewable energy consulting, so if you're tossing out people with a financial stake in their arguments you'd probably start there. It also doesn't appear to mention the costs, which are usually massive on this scale. Also, buried in the document in question are some notes about assuming costs based on tax credits. And I hope it goes without saying that lots of things look suddenly affordable if someone else is picking up the tab.


I just wish I could've been smart enough to get an electric car back when they were cheap, oh wait, they've never been cheap and in fact, (I learned this from one of those docs you rarely watch) GM killed the electric car just a few short years ago. Why would they do that? A group of people took over a MILLION dollars down to the lot after the cars had been recalled and tried to buy the cars from them and were refused. Why? I thought auto makers wanted to make money, instead the cars were all taken and crushed. Ridiculous. There's not enough oil in an electric car is the problem.
I think this is where things go off the rails a bit, respectfully. The stunt at the dealership only shows us that large companies have protocol, and they don't generally sell you recalled products because they can't vouch for them and may have no system in place for maintenace or repairs. Which, by the way, is exactly what GM said in response to the film. The guy on the lot wasn't the CEO, he just worked for a dealership, right? Wouldn't that make the offer equivalent to bribing him to violate the recall order? And the total doesn't change anything, because we're talking about a multi-billion-dollar company. Also, they weren't all destroyed; one was given to the Smithsonian. Which kind of puts the damper on the idea that they had to destroy it because it was secretly awesome.

Every major car manufacturer is making hybrids. Chevy makes an electric car called the Volt. It's selling terribly. Why? You seem to want to argue both that the car companies suppress these things, and that ordinary people won't sacrifice to make it happen. I don't see how those two ideas can co-exist. If the problem is that people won't buy them, then we don't need a conspiracy to tell us why car companies don't make many.

As for political documentaries; I watch ones I agree with even more rarely than the ones I don't. I think they are, in general, highly manipulative, and that people put way too much stock in them as an information source. They are every bit as capable of misleading or misinforming as the written word. Probably moreso, because they can create a complete emotional impression that writing can't, and watching them is an inherently more passive activity.

But, at this point, you've alluded to me not watching political documentaries, and you've said I'm being "misled." So I think you'll agree that turnabout is fairplay when I ask: do you watch documentaries that argue this issue from the other side? Had you seen GM's response? Had you read anything by Bryce? Don't worry, I'm not going to be That Guy. I'm not saying your opinion is invalid if the answer to these questions is "no." I'm asking to find out one simple thing: do you genuinely want to investigate the issue? If not, then I can't imagine how you could avoid being misled yourself, let alone to the point at which you'd feel comfortable telling others they're being misled.


If we as a government can force or impose our will against another nation over oil or any other natural resource we want, we can easily do it for going greener. We simply play the same political hard ball that is played now and tell them the cost of doing business with the US means doing things a certain way.
Meaning what? We won't trade with any nation above a certain level of emissions? We don't trade with all the largest manufacturers' in the world, and thus become a protectionist nation? If so, get ready for a real depression, because you ain't seen nothin' yet.

I'm not sure what political hard ball we can play, either, or what hard ball you think we're playing now. We trade with almost everyone now, and we're a lot better for it (and so are they). And playing "hard ball" only works if you have an alternative ready to go.

In what way are we not dictating how Iraq's economy is going to work in the future? How are we not re-building their entire infrastructure? How many companies from Iraq are doing real work, noticeable work there, besides Halliburton and all the many other American companies that are there?
I'm kind of confused by the question, really. Rebuilding infrastructure is nothing like dictating a country's policies to them. You seem to be just mashing the war and the rebuilding and energy policy into one big category called "doing stuff" and saying, if we can do some stuff, why not some other stuff? Well, because the other stuff is blatant imperialism, mainly.

And you hated the first stuff anyway, didn't you? So at best this would be an argument about why certain conservatives should be theoretically okay with the idea, not an actual reason that you would be personally satisfied by.

See, I agree with all of this... And it really isn't difficult to "lead the way". All we have to do is set out to get each and every person to a carbon emission of zero in ten to fifteen years. Once we do that we begin to embrace real change.
That's all? You're basically talking about reverting to an agrarian economy.

The problem here is that the rhetoric and the consequences are so, so far apart. The rhetoric makes it sound like we all just need to stop driving hummers, buy hybrids, slap a few solar panels on the roof and and be willing to pay a little more for our energy. The reality is absolutely nothing like that. The reality is that if we had to move off of fossil fuels as things are now, the grid wouldn't even function.



By the by, I realize I'm a crazy person, so if that's too long, daunting, whatever, I have a standing offer to summarize or boil most of it down to a few short points or questions upon request. I really did work to shorten it, though, even though that probably looks like a huge lie.



I hadn't realized that you'd gotten back to me Chris, I'll re-read some of this and get back in here later this week.

I will say this though and I know you kinda don't go for this idea, but all this stuff? It's all the same to me. If I go from one "issue" to another, you'll just have to bear with me. I try to stay on topic as much as I can but to me all of this stuff. This "green energy" this "war on terror" this "agrarian economy" are all a part of a much bigger thing. You think people are broken? I think civilization is broken. We have a major difference of opinion there. And its not easy for me to always stay on task when I tend to think that this whole debate is pointless to begin with. But I am trying.



there's a frog in my snake oil
Thus imbuing your response with the soul of wit!
We all sup from the Shakespeare cup over here

Originally Posted by Yods
Well, the profit margins are always better on existing technologies, yet somehow, without anyone forcing them to do it, businesses manage to bring new ones to market all the time.
That's certainly true, but with energy tech you're looking at some pretty formidable investment to get the new tech up and running - especially in the areas where you're going toe to toe with some of the wealthiest industries around. The more 'niche' products like wind & solar, that can supplement rather than replace etc, have of course got off the ground more quickly.

But like you say, we both agree this profitability plays a role in maintaining a fossil fuel 'hegemoney' of sorts. (Altho we might use different terms perhaps )

Originally Posted by Yods
My real issue is with the way it contradicts the sister arguments that are almost invariably made alongside it. Fossil fuels are more profitable because they're just a way better energy source, not because of a conspiracy. Unless, again, we're naming physics as a co-conspirator. I'd love to see that subpoena. Can I make some kind of pun here about the "gravity" of the situation?
No you can't . But in part, because it's not as clear cut as you think...

Bloomsberg's analysts predict that wind power will hit the same MWh output efficiency as gas-powered stations by 2016, thanks to increasing economies of scale & refined tech. (And they claim if CO2 'costs' were factored in they're already there in terms of bang for your buck - altho they don't go into details on how that would be calculated). The point being that the 'niche' renewables are starting to become highly competitive with fossil fuels. And that seems like pretty good news all round

But if you wanna talk 'conspiracies', we could talk about fossil fuel subsidies apparently being 500% larger globally than those lavished on 'clean' tech. Or we could mull over the fossil fuel industries being able to outspend the 'clean' groups in terms of US lobbying approx 20-to-1 over the last 2 decades or so.

These are other advantages of entrenched industries. Having built themselves up on the efficiencies of their product/resources, they can dedicate their profit crop to offsetting the product's weaknesses (in fossil fuel cases I suspect this is the cost of extraction etc) & to influencing policy etc to maintain the status quo. These are 'entrenched money' aspects that are of importance too no?

Originally Posted by Yods
Aye, and that public debate is precisely what I'm referencing. The overwhelming majority of these arguments seem to be just about the warming, with the unstated implication that this debate is somehow also a proxy for whatever environmentalist policy may follow from it.

This is a little more serious than the mere fact that sometimes political debates turn on superficial things. This is an awful lot of people who feel very passionately about the issue, yet spend almost no time arguing the most meaningful point of contention. It strikes me as a pretty big blind spot in the discourse.
I'm unclear as to what you think the 'most meaningful point of contention' is. Can you clarify plz?



there's a frog in my snake oil
Wanna help address climate change? How about...

Improving climate models using your computer's spare capacity

Climateprediction.net is a distributed computing project to produce predictions of the Earth's climate up to 2100 and to test the accuracy of climate models. To do this, we need people around the world to give us time on their computers - time when they have their computers switched on, but are not using them to their full capacity.

Loving the new version of BOINC. Lots of easy-access settings to tailor it to your computer. (You don't need a massively high end machine, and just 700mb of storage in theory. If you reckon your machine can handle it maybe give it a go )

---

PS I'll keep tabs on this thread if anyone needs more help. Haven't really got the bandwidth for args as such, but might engage. Or might just paste this...




I just heard that in Paris, France there's a new law going into effect that has people only driving their cars every other day. What an amazing idea!

Can you imagine if America had the balls to do that? We could literally, change the entire world overnight in just a few years.



I'm sure you can change lots of things quickly if you're willing to throw individual liberty under the bus. The bus you're not allowed to drive. It'd change the world alright, but not for the better.



They tried a carpooling campaign in Britain a number of years back. Think it was back in the 90s when the melting ice-caps became the new paranoia amongst the media panic-mongers.

Nobody did it and it just faded away into obscurity.



PW they're only doing that in Paris for a few days cos they're suffering a bad case of smog due to a particular set of weather conditions. I don't think it's going to be an ongoing thing



France is great... when the Gov fails the people and does something stupid against the populous' wishes, everyone just goes on strike until the Government reverses what they did in the first place.


Gotta love the French for that.