Mallette Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 The analogy was the discovery of a hole in the ozone layer and the chemicals that caused it my American scientists which led to the phased in ban of freon in aerosol sprays and other refrigerants. WWII is a LOT more appropriate than that. That solution was an easy button. While I know what we say here has no impact, what I am looking for is some SPECIFIC steps on how we reduced carbon emissions to zero. Frankly, I fear being arrested for farting... Doing what we are told is required will be massively disruption and affect every human on the planet. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 (edited) I'll start... Massive global program to build solar cell factories as quickly as possible. Fusion is better and a lot of money should be thrown at it but it isn't available NOW, and solar is. These plants shouldn't be free enterprise but taxpayer supported and the infrastructure changes as well. Nations that don't have an adequate tax base would have to be subsidized by those that can. Dave Edited February 27, 2015 by Mallette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Where my wife and I plan to retire, the majority of electricity is provided by geothermal power generation. Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eth2 Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Therein lies the rub, Earl. You also know it is private, but proclaim that since it has 'elements' that relate to public affairs it is off limits as being political. This reminds me of the conundrum "we know what the problem is, but talking about it is off limits." Steven, Steven, Steven. One last attempt to "clarify" the discussion you started, then disclaimed as being "not political." My original point was that the clear language of the "policy" said no political discussions. The discussion you started evolved to war, public financing, and many other topics. From there a conversation ensued during which I put forth the literal meaning of the term "political." Thereafter, a chorus of members said that the literal definition of "political" was not was actually meant. In response I asked where that line was to be drawn. I pm'd a moderator for a clarification and left it open for discussion. Unfortunately, you could not discern the real purpose of the discussion and argued with the dictionary definition (You should call Webster's as you seem to have time to continually drag this up again and again). So in the absence of a limitation on what "political" means on the forum, I will watch and see what discussions are ruled to be out of bounds. As I continually said in the thread, I DON'T CARE WHERE THE LINE IS DRAWN, OR IF NO LINE IS DRAWN. However, until one is made clear, I will exercise common sense and also try and make sure that you are well briefed on the basics of modern political and economic thought. Now go to the blackboard and write 100 times, "I finally get it...I finally get it...I finally get it..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldenough Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 (edited) Not an option for everybody Bruce... Edited February 27, 2015 by oldenough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 GW is just an intellectual argument. How can we be happy if we are mostly dead, which is where the predictions lead? Are you of the belief nothing needs to be done (about GW) and if so, why. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldenough Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Off topic: Just saw that Leonard Nimoy (Spock) passed away this morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Don't produce any more goods. Make the world survive on the junk already produced. Sufficiently advanced technology can appear as magic. You suggestion is pure fantasy. Anything useful? Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Off topic: Just saw that Leonard Nimoy (Spock) passed away this morning. Wow. I am genuinely sad. Learned a lot from his Spock character and rec'd a lot of pleasure from his work. Dave 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 So, you are saying that governments are no more convinced than the public of the scientists predictions? Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Most of the industrialized world had the required focus in WWII. Circling wagons to prevent global catastrophe doesn't require a hive mind, just enlightened self interest on the part of the ruling class and business interests. Main thing is you seem to be avoiding the question. Let's make it blunt: Will there be global catastrophe, and if not, why not? Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted February 27, 2015 Moderators Share Posted February 27, 2015 Off topic: Just saw that Leonard Nimoy (Spock) passed away this morning. Spock believed that Global Warming was man made. http://www.rgj.com/story/life/2015/02/27/rgj-archives-spoks-trek-an-interview-with-leonard-nimoy/24121709/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Self interest on the ruling class? Absolutely. What is that? It is to make as much money as they can, as fast as they can, no matter the consequences. Why would they care if 2B people will be killed in floods in 15 years? They don't They would love to see 5B people dead immediately. That's what's in their interest. So, that is your prediction? Anybody else have thoughts on what, if anything, should be done? If not, we can conclude that either the hype IS coming to an end, or we are. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted February 27, 2015 Moderators Share Posted February 27, 2015 Most of the industrialized world had the required focus in WWII. Circling wagons to prevent global catastrophe doesn't require a hive mind, just enlightened self interest on the part of the ruling class and business interests. Main thing is you seem to be avoiding the question. Let's make it blunt: Will there be global catastrophe, and if not, why not? Dave The focus in WWII was production, ours, and destroying their's. Our most advanced fighter, the P-51 was designed before we entered the war and was powered by a British power plant we made under license. Our most advanced bomber, the B-29 was designed in the late '30s and prototypes were made before we entered the war. The focus, ingenuity and genius we had in WWII was getting our production to 100% very quickly and then expanding that capacity. We were 10 years behind the Germans in most things, and 20 years behind in some things like rocket technology. Did we develop things and improve on technology during the war, sure we did. The obvious example is the Manhattan Project, but it didn't "solve" anything. There were sacrifices and shortages at home because we were not prepared. We converted automobile plants to airplane factories. Neville Chamberlain lacked focus and the US sure lacked focus until December 7th. We were on the "brink." Ozone depletion was an international problem, solved by a phased in ban on certain chemicals, based on science, with economic sanctions for violations and aid to underdeveloped countries to be able to comply. It is working. The major distinction between environmental problems such as ozone and AGW is if you reach the brink while you study it and debate it until there is a catastrophe in on of your own harbors, it is too late. As far as how to get to being carbon neutral by 2070, some are talking that it will be possible by 2050. As to how to do it, here is one article I found on a quick search ("how do we get to zero carbon emissions") that references research that I didn't have the time to read. However, what is clear is that the leading industrialized nations are working on getting to carbon neutrality in a very serious way. For the specifics on what the technology and energy policy will look like, the studies and the research are apparently there for the reading for those that want serious answers. We can either drag our feet, or we can be the leader in that technology and innovation to the benefit our economy. http://phys.org/news/2014-09-australia-carbon-emissions-economy.html Will there be a global catastrophe, and if not, why not? No, because science has revealed the problem, the way to fix it, and the world community, through science and technology, is figuring out ways to achieve the solution and be economically beneficial. There will not be a catastrophe because we are working on it now, just like the ozone 40 years ago. Plus, if predictions are true, we will have autonomous vehicles shortly that will be electric, solar powered, or a combination thereof. Tesla and Google will be the leading innovators, not the Big 3 (or is it 2 now) in Detroit. The Coal and Oil states will become like the Tobacco states, they will be heavily taxed and regulated, and they will adapt and find new business and industry in their states to replace the lost jobs and revenue. The coal and oil companies will pour more and more money into politics, eventually realize that is a lost cause, and go the way of Tobacco companies; still here but shifting to mostly exports and international sales, diversifying into other products like beer, and clinging on with every last breath as their sales in the US continue to decline. We will tax them, oil and coal, or the consumers of their products, in order to fund research and development of new technologies to replace oil and coal, AND, as a matter of public policy in order to make alternate energy sources more attractive and competitive. You will see hugh tax credits for electric vehicles, solar panels and wind generation. There will be a restructuring of the Atomic Energy Commission. After these changes in tax and public policy you will then see the focus we had in WWII, driven by price and demand. Of course, some of this might be conjecture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Okies, we have a verdict. After 27 pages of deliberation, we can say yes, the hype is coming to an end. Other than a few extreme sites on both sides, you'll find no major sweats going on in the mainstream. A visit to the oft quoted AAAS site will require a bit of a search to find anything on GW, and no governments are at red alert. It isn't about money, because if the predictions are correct the rich are about to get a lot more poor, maybe dead. It isn't about technology, as we have the technology to not only vastly reduce carbon emissions but make the rich richer doing so, usually meaning a go. Apparent world attitude? Meh. Any last words? Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigStewMan Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 The earth’s been pretty resilient thus far; and we (society) presume it always will be -- that’s the scary part. I know part of the earth will get warmer if i try to cook up some of that barley soup we talked about in that other thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Not an option for everybody Bruce... I certainly understand that. Personally, I think we should be better stewards of what we've got, whether or not we can change what is going on globally. I don't have an answer for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Personally, I think we should be better stewards of what we've got, About a 100 years too late for that. And it would simply have delayed the inevitable anyway. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Complete destruction from afar, and then leave behind a landscape that will take 10,000 years to heal. You gotta imagine that if that is how they rape the property IN THE USA, try to imagine what these guys do in Brazil, Columbia, Nigeria, Indonesia, the rest of the world. Breathtaking. I am sure people have similar stories about mountain top removal, strip mining, fracking and all the rest. Yep. I've seen it on both sides of the globe and in a number of cases in real time. The few who care are ignored and most spend their time figuring out what color that dress is or whatever else is "viral du jour." This time it isn't just a culture that is steadily marching towards the cliff but an entire race. One of my pet theories as to why we haven't heard from anybody is that all intelligent aberrations get about this far and DC themselves. I've spent the past 30 years gradually edging my little piece of Arkansas towards it's ancient self. While not 10k years like the redwoods, my son will be an old man before that area is even seriously moving towards it's former health. But he is, even at 13, ready and determined to carry on. Spitting into the wind, but makes me feel a bit better. In the picture, you can see some bull pines I cut that year. I examine the area every few years and look for promising hardwoods in the shade of mature large pines. I cut down the pines over them, then wait a few years and do it again. Slow, but I see improvements over the decades. The stones are our family fire ring made of rocks from the river. We find ONE rock to represent every river visit an put it on the ring. Dave 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Mark, I didn't take any courses nor have I really read any books on forest "management." However, I had the privilege to see forests near or as they were centuries ago when I was young and there seems to be almost a "comes with a book" feeling about caring for them in me. My grandmother's house in the 50s had about a 100 acre stand behind it I now believe to have been primary growth...if for no other reason than I've never seen anything like it since. We just took it for granted. Massive hardwoods and little or no undergrowth as though managed nature itself. There were occasional pines and considerable pine needle base, but also a lot of ground moss. No brambles or trip vines. Pretty close to a 100% shaded. Wonderful little creek flowing through that we'd dam up and play in on hot summer days, occasionally build a timber bridge over it and floor it with moss. Hugh vines grew in the trees and we'd cut one and use it like Tarzan. Once even cut a sort of highway through there where you could pretty well do the vine to vine thing just like him. Eden, destroyed. I think that has something to do with my drive and vision for my little piece of property. And, yes, its a great feeling. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts