patrick.net

Except that the USA is currently leading the entire world in percentage reduction of CO2 emissions. The entire world!
Seems like instead of self flagellation, we as a country need to encourage other countries like China (which has double our emissions) to catch up!
Indeed, the USA (perhaps as a result of Democrat programs, props deserved) has vastly expanded renewable energy programs and electricity efficiency, as well as moving electric vehicles to a viable option for consumers.
So, no, Trump pulling us out of a meaningless global agreement doesn't mean the end. Just the end of our involvement with another meaningless and toothless agreement.

The ONLY way to reduce global emissions is to implement green technologies worldwide as fast as possible. This means making them affordable and economically attractive, not using our bully stick yet again!

And yes, once the solar minimum goes away we will likely see temp increases. Temporary solutions have yet to be tried. We can do that to stave off the process as long as necessary.

If you really think catastrophic global warming is inevitable, buy land in Alaska or Canada.

Since climate change is irreversible, we should just seize the assets of polluters and deniers and use them to alleviate the costs of climate change. If they thought it would cost them wealth to stop polluting, what until all their assets are confiscated.

Stop driving your stupid red sports car then Dan

Buying a new car would be less environmentally sound.

How about if we transition off of coal? Or do real solutions not satisfy your smugness?

Dan8267 says

How about if we transition off of coal

To what? Oil? Pretty much the same carbon and we'd need to import it from countries that hate us. Nuclear? Environmental regulations mean we can't do that. Wind and solar are already expanding fast but are still a fraction of what's needed.

Point is, the USA is surging ahead with renewable energy sourcing, leading the world by a giant percentage of carbon emission reductions. We are already doing about everything we can do aside from shutting down everything and going medieval. Of course that won't happen, otherwise we'd need far less computer programmers.
Meanwhile jackasses like to scream about climate change while they make absolutely no changes to their own energy behaviors.

Quigley says

Except that the USA is currently leading the entire world in percentage reduction of CO2 emissions. The entire world!

Because we use 4X as much oil per capita as Europeans do, that is not much to brag about. Number is from last time I checked.

Quigley says

To what?

If you truly believe in free markets as the best way to allocate resources, then you must be completely against all forms of cost shifting including pollution. Allowing pollution undermines the invisible hand of the free market by picking winners (polluters) and losers (non-polluters) by greatly subsidizing the former in terms of costs paid by non-users of the products of polluters.

All energy producers should be required to not pollute or to pay 100% of the cleanup costs of their pollution. If that makes coal cost ten times as much as solar, then that is exactly the free market telling you that coal is really expensive, not cheap.

Make the polluters pay for the cleanup or stop polluting and let the free market determine the true cost of coal and whether or not its worth burning. Free markets do not say you should engage in every possible economic transaction.

Everyone knows that free markets(money) trump the continuing existence of homo sapiens.
When deniers state dying from AGW they can blame Reagan & their ignorance for removing the solar panels from the White House.
Where would we be if we had focused on solar energy from 1981 when Reagan took office.?

"#3: The sun continuously pelts the earth with 35,000 times the amount of energy required by all of us who now use electricity on the planet!"
By the way,one doesn't have to mine,drill,refine or transport solar.
BOOM! It's right where one needs it. Might have to store some & reduce wasteful usage.
Where does the sun go at night?

https://solarpowerrocks.com/solar-basics/3-reasons-the-sun/

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/20/1700-private-jets-fly-to-davos-to-discuss-global-warming/

1,700 Private Jets Fly to Davos to Discuss Global Warming

A squadron of 1,700 private jets are rumbling into Davos, Switzerland, this week to discuss global warming and other issues as the annual World Economic Forum gets underway.

The influx of private jets is so great, the Swiss Armed Forces has been forced to open up a military air base for the first time ever to absorb all the super rich flying their private jets into the event, reports Newsweek.

This is leonardo dicaprio's yacht. This is the same asshole lecturing you on your carbon footprint.

"International Climate Policy" is a globalist scheme to redistribute the world's wealth. No thank you! What other President would do this for us? Thanks again Mr President!

zzyzzx says

This is leonardo dicaprio's yacht

Individual efforts mean nothing. Institute pollution taxes whose total revenue equals whatever it costs to clean up the pollution. Then let the free market decide if you want to buy a yacht or take leisure drives. Anyone against free markets?

Dan8267 says

Individual efforts mean nothing.

At least people who live in 100000000sq ft homes should not lecture everyone, and if they want to lecture others, they should practice what they preach.

About "green energies" - this is not exactly my field of research, but a lot of them are total nonsense from "green" viewpoint. For example, bioethanol is actually worse than oil - http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/06/05_ethanol.shtml
The paper points out that the energy of 2.66 gallons of ethanol is equivalent to 1.74 gallons of gasoline. In other words, the energy input of 4.93 gallons of gasoline equivalent leads to an energy output of 1.74 gallons of gasoline equivalent, or a net energy loss of 65 percent.

So-called hybrid cars are probably less efficient with respect to their carbon footprint than Toyota Corolla due to complex batteries. One needs to drive hybrid car over 100K miles to get environmental parity.

According to an in-depth study by the U.S. Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory, hybrid cars do, in fact, require more energy to produce than conventional cars, emitting more greenhouse gases and burning more fossil fuels during the manufacturing process. The production of hybrid batteries, in particular, requires much more energy than producing a standard car battery and results in higher emission levels of gases like sulfur oxide.

Best from carbon-emissions viewpoint is probably nuclear, but that is deeply unpopular. Solar is fine, other than poisons in solar panels themselves.

drBu says

At least people who live in 100000000sq ft homes should not lecture everyone, and if they want to lecture others, they should practice what they preach.

That is true, and I wholehearted agree with that. However, I do not agree with the real implication that people posting such pictures are suggesting, specifically that we should do nothing about pollution because some rich people live opulent lifestyles. We still need to address the problem of pollution. It is both a practical and a moral issue.

Dan8267 says

We still need to address the problem of pollution.

No one can deny that or more precisely no one SHOULD deny that. The problem is that argument has become emotionally charged instead of scientific, with one side screaming that they will dump mercury in water supply to increase their profits, while the other side wants humanity to live in caves, regulate everything including emissions of substances that are harmless, and not use anything tested on animals/genetically modified.

Discussion in press has degenerated into Hollywood celebrities showing off their "environmental consciousness" and empty heads by driving electric cars to their million sq ft mansions and private airfields.

drBu says

Best from carbon-emissions viewpoint is probably nuclear

The public, unfortunately, is willfully ignorant about nuclear power. There are several problems with the public rather than nuclear power.
1. Damn hippies hear the word nuclear and think nuclear weapons and war rather than direct solar power. The sun is a nuclear power reactor.
2. People don't distinguish between nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. Developing the later is important.
3. Almost all nuclear power plants in the U.S. and in the world are light water reactors. This type was chosen for use because it was simple and easy to build and relatively cheap. It's not the best solution by far. There are many other solutions that are not susceptible to meltdown.
4. What people call nuclear waste is actually a form of clean energy when used properly, and should be called fission batteries. Such batteries can provide completely clean and carbon neutral energy for hundreds of years, albeit at exponentially decreasing output. Still, it should take little money and effort to maintain a fission battery power plant.

The energy crisis and pollution are also a failure intrinsic to capitalism. Clean, decentralized energy production would be the ideal environmental and economic solution. However, although the proponents of capitalism claim that capitalism is better than centralized planning and production, actual capitalists are absolutely all for centralization. After all, a centralized industry is way more profitable despite being far less efficient and producing less wealth. Capitalists will always choose centralized power production over decentralized. After all, if energy production is decentralized, it becomes dirt cheap and there is no profit to be made. Efficient markets produce no profit by mathematical definition. Capitalists hate efficient markets and will do anything to create institutionalized inefficiency as that is the only way to create permanent, large revenue streams.

However, it would be far better for the economy if energy were clean, decentralized, and dirt cheap like smartphones and websites. The fact that large industries like the energy industry can effectively block such advancements is a major reason why capitalism fails in a technologically advanced society. Maintaining existing revenue streams requires blocking innovation through law and business practices so that markets remain inefficient and wasteful. Profits are siphoned from the waste.

Here's an alternative idea. Let people profit take from advancing technology, but only for a decade or so. Then use the revenue streams of the technology to feed a universal income. This would greatly improve the economy by increasing the purchasing power of almost everyone and also by removing the perverse financial incentives to block innovation.