Irreversible climate damage is imminent

[duff beer]

Even if the planet is warming, that's not always bad. I live in Winnipeg and the average temperature was -20C for December, January, and February. We had 30 days colder than -30. My furnace runs from October to May every year.

The growing season on the Canadian prairies lasts from late May to mid-September. Warming will help us, not hurt us. Warming will help northern states like Minnesota and the Dakotas.

All the climate models have been wrong. They all also claim that it won't just get warmer, it will get more "severe". There is very little indication of that...it only seems like it because every single storm is now attributed to climate change, when before they were just storms and only made the news if someone died.

 

[Immigrant]

Thank goodness the US never shifted a bunch of manufacturing (and jobs that go with it) over to China and surrounding countries. Their air would be really screwed up then.

On another note, because the warmth makes someone who lives in a colder climate feel better, that doesn't mean it's a good thing globally. While we can be happy that our furnace runs less, it may be a good thing to consider what a warming trend could do to an already-warm portion of the globe. I think it's the Maldives that is on track to disappear, and Australia may have fresh water source problems in time.

I dunno. I'm kinda nutty.

 

[Unrepresented]

Thank goodness the US never shifted a bunch of manufacturing (and jobs that go with it) over to China and surrounding countries. Their air would be really screwed up then.

On another note, because the warmth makes someone who lives in a colder climate feel better, that doesn't mean it's a good thing globally. While we can be happy that our furnace runs less, it may be a good thing to consider what a warming trend could do to an already-warm portion of the globe. I think it's the Maldives that is on track to disappear, and Australia may have fresh water source problems in time.

I dunno. I'm kinda nutty.

Exactly. The "free market" decided that we were better off underpaying the Chinese to destroy their environment (and subsequently ours) because of their lack of regulation, while simultaneously hacking off middle class jobs from our economy. Win/win.:|

 

[duff beer]

Thank goodness the US never shifted a bunch of manufacturing (and jobs that go with it) over to China and surrounding countries. Their air would be really screwed up then.

On another note, because the warmth makes someone who lives in a colder climate feel better, that doesn't mean it's a good thing globally. While we can be happy that our furnace runs less, it may be a good thing to consider what a warming trend could do to an already-warm portion of the globe. I think it's the Maldives that is on track to disappear, and Australia may have fresh water source problems in time.

I dunno. I'm kinda nutty.

It doesn't mean it's a bad thing either. Some areas will be better off and some will be worse...but in the end it may be a wash. Is it really worth spending trillions on something that may or may not happen?

Some islands rise and some sink...the Maldives is no different. As for Australia's water problems...that should be no surprise to anyone when you have millions of people populating a dry climate. Drought in Australia is common...it's the driest inhabited continent on the planet.

 

[Unrepresented]

It doesn't mean it's a bad thing either. Some areas will be better off and some will be worse...but in the end it may be a wash. Is it really worth spending trillions on something that may or may not happen?

Some islands rise and some sink...the Maldives is no different. As for Australia's water problems...that should be no surprise to anyone when you have millions of people populating a dry climate. Drought in Australia is common...it's the driest inhabited continent on the planet.

Even if it is a "wash" (it won't be) shifting the entire world's populations around the globe to different areas seems like a massive, massive undertaking, and far, far more invasive than just limiting some emissions in the first place.

 

[will33]

Exactly. The "free market" decided that we were better off underpaying the Chinese to destroy their environment (and subsequently ours) because of their lack of regulation, while simultaneously hacking off middle class jobs from our economy. Win/win.:|

Exactly. It's why though my default position as a whole being generally anti-gov't, anti-"more laws", pro-liberty, etc., I'm smart enough to know that "the market" isn't always the answer for everything.

Actually, few if any markets are genuinely "free". Regulations, licensing requirements, etc., apply to most every business or occupation or task there is aside from picking your nose. The only market that might be so-called "free" might be the drug trade. Aside from being illegal, there are no regulations. Supply and demand plays itself out and people can get plenty of pot for a fair price. Though there is that whole warlord/cartel thing.

 

[duff beer]

You don't know it won't be a wash...in spite of all the claims and all the projections, no one can really say with any accuracy that the world will get X degrees warmer in X number of years, if at all. People and groups that have claimed irreversible climate change are now scrambling to "explain" the "pause". None of them seem willing to even consider that they just might have been wrong.

As to shifting the "entire world's population"...that's far too silly to even respond to.

How much more money are you willing to sacrifice for failed green projects and increased energy costs based on projections that have ALL been wrong? At what point does reason and common sense come into play?

 

[Unrepresented]

Actually, few if any markets are genuinely "free". Regulations, licensing requirements, etc., apply to most every business or occupation or task there is aside from picking your nose. The only market that might be so-called "free" might be the drug trade. Aside from being illegal, there are no regulations. Supply and demand plays itself out and people can get plenty of pot for a fair price. Though there is that whole warlord/cartel thing.

As to shifting the "entire world's population"...that's far too silly to even respond to.

How so? The change in sea levels and temperature will force redistribution of everything from land that's available for farming to land that's safe from tsunamis, to coastlines that are above water.People will be forced to move, and most of them will be areas of the world that tend to be the poorest. So get your checkbook out if you or your government is humanitarian in the least.

How much more money are you willing to sacrifice for failed green projects and increased energy costs based on projections that have ALL been wrong? At what point does reason and common sense come into play?

The R&D phases are always expensive and frustrating. Welcome to the development of every single product and market ever created.

 

[will33]

Free markets generally have more beheaded people hanging from freeway overpasses than more managed ones.

The numbers range, but they seem to agree that it's going up.

How so? The change in sea levels and temperature will force redistribution of everything from land that's available for farming to land that's safe from tsunamis, to coastlines that are above water.People will be forced to move, and most of them will be areas of the world that tend to be the poorest.

That may be true in some parts of the world, though here, and I'd imagine in most developed nations, pretty sure poor people aren't living on ocean front property. It's usually the more well to do that can afford those properties.

Could use that to argue economic destruction though. Wipe out a few major port cities in any country and watch what happens to their economy.

 

[Lonesomedave]

....The R&D phases are always expensive and frustrating. Welcome to the development of every single product and market ever created.

yeahhhh....but this is different....here we have government picking winners and losers....and from what i can see, most of the ones they have picked have gone belly up after a huge waste of taxpayer dollars....please feel free to correct me, because i don't claim to be an expert and i could be wrong about government failure here...there could be a million shining lights of success...i just haven't seen them...i just see the perpetrators scuttling off, after lining their pockets with taxpayer money

if the market ruled, sure, there would be winners and losers, but it would be from natural attrition

the combination of wasted green money (MY money in fact) and lack of pursuing all of our own resources....well, i i am against it

 

[Steve]

irreversable? Puh-leeze.

Mother Nature will square this planet away in no time by her clock. Just as soon as she wipes us off the planet once and for all.

 

[Unrepresented]

That may be true in some parts of the world, though here, and I'd imagine in most developed nations, pretty sure poor people aren't living on ocean front property. It's usually the more well to do that can afford those properties.

Could use that to argue economic destruction though. Wipe out a few major port cities in any country and watch what happens to their economy.

Maybe I will then...

...and let's not forget about the economic destruction this would cause as we devastate the major port cities in the world.:|

yeahhhh....but this is different....here we have government picking winners and losers....and from what i can see, most of the ones they have picked have gone belly up after a huge waste of taxpayer dollars....please feel free to correct me, because i don't claim to be an expert and i could be wrong about government failure here...there could be a million shining lights of success...i just haven't seen them...i just see the perpetrators scuttling off, after lining their pockets with taxpayer money

if the market ruled, sure, there would be winners and losers, but it would be from natural attrition

the combination of wasted green money (MY money in fact) and lack of pursuing all of our own resources....well, i i am against it

The government picks winners and losers all the time. You're familiar with the complexity of our tax codes, tariffs, treaties, incentives, laws, etc.

Basically everything the government does picks winners and losers on some level. The government had been picking petroleum as a winner for the last century. It wasn't market manipulation when something went wrong then.

 

[bass12]

Even if the planet is warming, that's not always bad. I live in Winnipeg and the average temperature was -20C for December, January, and February. We had 30 days colder than -30. My furnace runs from October to May every year.

The growing season on the Canadian prairies lasts from late May to mid-September. Warming will help us, not hurt us. Warming will help northern states like Minnesota and the Dakotas.

All the climate models have been wrong. They all also claim that it won't just get warmer, it will get more "severe". There is very little indication of that...it only seems like it because every single storm is now attributed to climate change, when before they were just storms and only made the news if someone died.

Unfortunately it's not just a matter of things getting warmer, it's a matter of a very fine balance in nature being offset too quickly for necessary evolution to occur in a relatively "painless" way. In nature everything is linked. You change one thing and a domino effect is created. A lot of times we can only guess at what the effects will be - and we tend to underestimate those effects in our favour.

 

[Lonesomedave]

..... The government had been picking petroleum as a winner for the last century. It wasn't market manipulation when something went wrong then.

wrong...by the time government got involved petroleum already WAS a winner...the free market had made it a winner, and it served us well ever since

what the government is doing here is nothing but placing bets (bets, which, BTW, it is making with our money)....extremely low percentage bets

i at least am glad you have confirmed my belief that almost all the government bets have been on losers....and about the perpetrators making off individually with boatloads of money...i say this, because although i asked for correction, you did not correct me....please correct me now, if not so

 

[ChrisB2]

The change in sea levels and temperature will force redistribution of everything from land that's available for farming to land that's safe from tsunamis, to coastlines that are above water.

Hogwash

 

[will33]

I'd agree the gov't has no business gambling with our money. They've also no business using it for corporate welfare or practicing their little social experiments via the tax code, yet these things happen all the time.

Only real solution would be a move to a flat tax or national sales tax, but that'll never happen.

 

[bkbirge]

I'd agree the gov't has no business gambling with our money. They've also no business using it for corporate welfare or practicing their little social experiments via the tax code, yet these things happen all the time.

Only real solution would be a move to a flat tax or national sales tax, but that'll never happen.

I'm with you on that one.

 

[Unrepresented]

wrong...by the time government got involved petroleum already WAS a winner...the free market had made it a winner, and it served us well ever since

what the government is doing here is nothing but placing bets (bets, which, BTW, it is making with our money)....extremely low percentage bets

i at least am glad you have confirmed my belief that almost all the government bets have been on losers....and about the perpetrators making off individually with boatloads of money...i say this, because although i asked for correction, you did not correct me....please correct me now, if not so

1) Petroleum has lasted as long as it has because of protections. Plastics certainly weren't household products a century ago. And a whole mess of industries have risen and fallen during its dynasty. Petroleum has held a massive monopoly.

2) As for betting on losers, yes. If it were easy and cheap the market would have done it already, right? Things aren't always easy and cheap. That's why private industry still hadn't gotten us onto the moon, or created a program that provides seniors with low cost, high quality healthcare.

Hogwash

Touche.

I'd agree the gov't has no business gambling with our money. They've also no business using it for corporate welfare or practicing their little social experiments via the tax code, yet these things happen all the time.

Only real solution would be a move to a flat tax or national sales tax, but that'll never happen.

Not planning for our stability is gambling too.

 

[will33]

Not planning for our stability is gambling too.

Where would you lose stability?

In my dream system those with more would contribute more, those with less would contribute less, but everyone would contribute something, thus being invested in society and incentivized to improve and preserve it. All while simultainiously taking power away from the powers that be to limit their tomfoolery creating and manipulating false markets via tax code manipulation. Win/win.


+1 to eliminating all this plastic.

 

[NWB]

1) Petroleum has lasted as long as it has because of protections.

Not true. Petroleum has lasted as long as it has because it is the most dense form of energy available for us to use. There are no other sources of energy to power our industrial society that provide anything close to the energy density and transportability of petroleum.

Every industrialized country in the world uses vast amounts of petroleum to keep things running along.