patrick.net

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.

drBu says

No one can deny that or more precisely no one SHOULD deny that.

Yet plenty of people do deny that and throw red herrings to distract from it. Just look at all the climate change deniers on this forum. They don't want anti-pollution laws because they like the process of shifting the costs of goods and services unto the public because doing so increases their profits at the expense of everyone else even those not using their products. This is a form of theft that they want to keep legal.

Just look at Trump's position on climate change and pollution. He's 100% for it. The short-term profits of the few outweigh the welfare of all future generations and the public at large.

No.
According to Dan's previous penalty assessments, every rich bitch that causes a carbon footprint greater than 2x bitches allowance, should go directly to jail for life and have all wealth and oscars distributed evenly amongst the populace...

Dan8267 says

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.

drBu says

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.

Fuck Hollywood. It's shit. But don't let Hollywood hypocrisy undermine important engineering decisions and environmental management. The overwhelmingly vast majority of our real wealth is environmental wealth. If we spent all our treasure, we could not terraform any planet into being as livable as Earth is right now. The cost of repairing the damage is orders of magnitude greater than the profits generated by causing the damage. It's just bad economics to pollute. Anyone who is for allowing pollution simply sucks at business and accounting, and should not be allowed to make or influence policy.

Dan8267 says

It's just bad economics to pollute.

What compounds constitute pollution, how much can be tolerated, and so on. It is not as simple as it seems, and there are no easy solutions where one can wave a magic wand and we have good life standard and no pollution.

drBu says

It is not as simple as it seems

That's a cop out. Coal power plants cause sea-food to become poisoned with methylmercury . That's plain and simple. Provide a justifcation for allowing coal power plants to release methylmercury into the food chain.

Carbon and methane emissions can and should be taxed. Scientists have precisely measured these emissions and their effects.

The computerized stock market with bots nano-trading is way the hell more complicated than the issue of pollution. If humans can handle that complexity, then they can handle the idea that you shouldn't dump waste anywhere you want. The argument that "it's complicated, so let's do nothing" is bullshit. Would you apply that to terrorism? Would you apply that to any other form of theft?

zzyzzx says

Global pollution taxes enforced with trade agreements. There, I solved that problem for you.

If we can enforce tax compliance and banking transparency through trade agreements, we can do the same for pollution standards.

Dan8267 says

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

Certain people, like Al Gore need to stop being hypocrites if they actually expect people to take them seriously. The more I read about the Paris Accord the happier I am with the pullout, Thank You President Trump.

Dan8267 says

Global pollution taxes enforced with trade agreements. There, I solved that problem for you.

True, but the US has stricter emissions standards then pretty much everyone else already. Yes, that includes Europe which has more lax auto emissions,

zzyzzx says

Certain people, like Al Gore need to stop being hypocrites if they actually expect people to take them seriously.

The people you don't like are irrelevant. You don't have to take them seriously, but you absolutely have to take climate change and pollution seriously or no one should take you seriously.

Stop making environmental management a cultural issue. It is NOT. Wisely managing the environment is a scientific, engineering, economic, national security, and moral issue. If you are not for protecting the environment for future generations, then you are both an idiot and a villain. Wrecking the environment is destroying wealth, threatening our national security, threatening our survival, and impoverishing future generations.

Americans need to get the fuck over the whole cowboy vs. hippies, 1950s vs 1960s culture war. Both cultures suck, and both cultures are going to die with the Baby Boomers. The 1950s and 1960s were shitty decades that cannot hold a candle to this decade. Get over them. We have real problems to solve that have nothing to do with your stupid, dying cultures.

Dan8267 says

The argument that "it's complicated, so let's do nothing" is bullshit. Would you apply that to terrorism? Would you apply that to any other form of theft?

I am not saying that nothing should be done. I am saying that it needs to be looked at without emotions and that one needs to take into account both pollution and potential life standard decreases with more strict rules. If this would be left for me to decide, I would build nuclear power plants with improved technology (perhaps Th), recycle burnt-out nuclear fuel - I think technology allows that already and it is not done simply because USGov is afraid of highly concentrated radioactive material falling into hands of terrorists, and use solar panels where sun constantly shines - CA, NM, AZ. Taxes I do not like, as they will be used to build another 100 F-35's.

zzyzzx says

True, but the US has stricter emissions standards then pretty much everyone else already. Yes, that includes Europe which has more lax auto emissions,

Then do exactly what I proposed. It will fix that problem, keep the world economy running, and prevent national security threats like terrorism from increasing.

drBu says

I am not saying that nothing should be done.

Perhaps you aren't, but zzyzzx and most people making such arguments are.

drBu says

I am saying that it needs to be looked at without emotions and that one needs to take into account both pollution and potential life standard decreases with more strict rules.

That is exactly what scientists have already done. We know that the minor increase in comfort today is coming at a very large economic cost in the future. That's not wisdom. It's shortsightedness.

Dan8267 says

Since climate change is irreversible, we should just seize the assets of polluters

A guy with an old Volvo looks like a prime candidate for assets seizure. That jalopy is a fucking gross polluter.

Dan8267 says

That is exactly what scientists have already done.

Depends. I have heard from some "scientists" that bioethanol is good for environment, while simple calculations prove the opposite.

Straw Man says

That jalopy is a fucking gross polluter.

I can pretty much guarantee that I produce far less pollution than you, if we're playing the holier than thou game.

But what the fuck does that have to do with choosing the wisest policies regarding pollution control and climate change?

Only fools personalize global policy decisions.

drBu says

Depends. I have heard from some "scientists" that bioethanol is good for environment, while simple calculations prove the opposite.

There's a big difference between debating specific plans and debating whether or not to even address the problem. Every pro-pollution thread on this site is about advocating that we do not even address the problem. I'm all for debating specific engineering plans, but we have to all agree to seriously address the problem.

Dan8267 says

we have to all agree to seriously address the problem

Either we agree to address the problem, or the problem will address all of us later in ways we will not like.

Dan8267 says

But what the fuck does that have to do with choosing the wisest policies regarding pollution control and climate change?

You proposed wise policy of confiscating assets from polluters, I've started the list of targets. Not sure why are you unhappy with that. Wise policy suddenly doesn't look so wise when it's you on the list?

Dan8267 says

True, but the US has stricter emissions standards then pretty much everyone else already. Yes, that includes Europe which has more lax auto emissions,

Then do exactly what I proposed. It will fix that problem, keep the world economy running, and prevent national security threats like terrorism from increasing.

If we already have more strict emissions standards, then why do we need this unfair Paris treaty?

This is Al Gore’s House. It uses twenty times as much energy as the average American home. $30,000 a year in utility bills yet he thinks he can lecture you on your carbon footprint.

zzyzzx says

This is Al Gore’s House.

He should be made to live there for 3 months without consuming one watt of electricity.

zzyzzx says

This is Al Gore’s House. It uses twenty times as much energy as the average American home. $30,000 a year in utility bills yet he thinks he can lecture you on your carbon footprint.

Where are the solar panels?

zzyzzx says

If we already have more strict emissions standards, then why do we need this unfair Paris treaty?

We need to globally tax pollution enough to clean up the pollution. The Paris treaty didn't go nearly far enough.

Ultimately allowing polluters to trash the Earth violates free market principles, shifts the costs of their products to people not buying those products, and causes long-term devastation of the economy.

So, what's the up side of picking a few winners and letting them pollute? That's the worst kind of socialism, privatizing the profits while socializing the costs and doing so very inefficiently.

Tenpoundbass says

He should be made to live there for 3 months without consuming one watt of electricity.

Easily done if he picks the right time of year.

Dan8267 says

We need to globally tax pollution enough to clean up the pollution.

China, India and Russia will tell you to go and fuck yourself if any real tax is imposed on them. What's next? Trade war? Blockade leading to real war?

Straw Man says

China, India and Russia will tell you to go and fuck yourself if any real tax is imposed on them. What's next? Trade war? Blockade leading to real war?

China and India don't want to lose the American market. They would comply.

Besides, even your ridiculous nightmare scenario is far better than extinction, war, or mass death.

Dan8267 says

Besides, even your ridiculous nightmare scenario is far better than extinction, war, or mass death.

Right. Real war (and mass death which comes with it) real soon is "better" than potential war/mass death in some distant future.

Dan8267 says

China and India don't want to lose the American market. They would comply.

If they comply they will lose it anyway. Because their shit won't be able to compete. They might chose the path of two world economies instead: one for "carbon-holy" US/EU and other for "carbon-sinners" a.k.a. rest of the world. How do you persuade them to cut carbon emissions then?

When there's an accord that calls for a 1 child policy through a mix of sticks and carrots, I'll be all for it.

And one that takes in account this Mordor in Mongolia:

http://www.news.com.au/travel/world-travel/asia/baotou-is-the-worlds-biggest-supplier-of-rare-earth-minerals-and-its-hell-on-earth/news-story/371376b9893492cfc77d23744ca12bc5

Right now we're subsidizing it and Elon Musk just Rage Quit because he needs this massive, radioactive pollution to continue for Tesla.

We already have the technology and societal sophistication to stop real Pollution. Reduce population, tax the fuck out of Privately Owned Vehicles.