Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The fact of the matter is that climate change, like +4-6F is going to happen by the next 1-200 years. There's no way we are going to go fossil free any time soon, and there will be feedback loops.
Is that bad though? Not really. The IPCC says the negative effects of climate change will shave off a couple GDP points - kinda like the Russia Ukraine war does. Lives lost in disasters is going down, even if there are more (which is debatable given the downward trend in tornadoes and lack of upward trend in hurricanes). The real disasters come from Libyas, not Australias. And that's not counting the benefits of climate change: less heating days and overall better weather, much more arable land, faster growing forests etc. In all, it's a wash economically, the losers are on the coasts and the winners are in land. The Saraha is going to go back green from climate change, and that alone is like an entire US becoming habitable - who cares if Florida disappears.
That's why any sort of geoengineering to stop it is horrible. There's all sorts of ways it can go wrong, and cooling back down could be as bad or worse than continuing the warming. Earths already adapted to the new regime, going back down to 1850s temps would mess a lot of stuff up, like forests. We'd have massive die offs of warmer species trees that moved into formerly cold areas, and that would be horrible.
If we prevent one asteroid hit, humanity has absolved all the damage it's done to the earth.
That's not to say we should keep using fossil fuels at a rampant rate. If we can slow warming, the planet will be jolted less. And we should absolutely keep them preserved as resources and limiting the damage from extraction.
So, what should we do? Carbon taxes today to cut demand while stop hyping these unrealistic 0 fossil fuels by 2060 nonsense. We'll be using them then, so we should be using less today.
So, what should we do? Carbon taxes today to cut demand.
Carbon taxes do absolutely nothing to stop demand of fossil fuels. People will still have to buy gasoline to get to work and natural gas to heat their homes no matter how much you charge for it. All these taxes do is raise the cost of living for everyone, with those in the lowest social classes being hit the hardest.
Carbon taxes do absolutely nothing to stop demand of fossil fuels. People will still have to buy gasoline to get to work and natural gas to heat their homes no matter how much you charge for it. All these taxes do is raise the cost of living for everyone, with those in the lowest social classes being hit the hardest.
Ha! Look how vehicle choices changed when gas prices went high. Most miles driven aren't utilitarian only. People absolutely react. A company may not decide to build a data center due to electricity prices, bam 50000 homes worth of electricity canceled.
And you can do a progressive tax cut back in income tax to cancel out the regressive gas tax.
Carbon taxes do absolutely nothing to stop demand of fossil fuels. People will still have to buy gasoline to get to work and natural gas to heat their homes no matter how much you charge for it. All these taxes do is raise the cost of living for everyone, with those in the lowest social classes being hit the hardest.
Any punitive taxation in the long run changes consumer behaviour.
Look @ cigarettes and alcohol. When I was a kid, a pack of cigs was $3. Easy enough to save up and buy a pack and pick up the habit.
Now a pack will run you $13. I guarantee that with a price like that a lot of kids won't pick up the habit.
If you tax carbon intensive products more and give tax breaks for cleaner choices, then consumers AND producers change course in the long run.
Consumers will not change their (bad) habits unless there is a punitive consequence. Look @ speeding or wearing seat belts.
This one hit my feed. It's not just CO2 but also methane levels. You'd think it would be from cows farting but it's actually from a couple of huge landfills and drilling sites in the middle east, and also forest activity from increasing vegetation which releases methane as it decays. Most landfills in developed nations have methane capture systems, if you were wondering.
Basically increasing CO2 levels causes increasing methane levels through natural actions. All human driven. Climate change deniers simply don't understand the science. That said, the ruling class doesn't want to give up their private jets, so they aren't taking it that seriously. My carbon footprint is fairly small simply because I'm a boring person, but most people who preach about climate change live lifestyles that tend to, but not always, leave a large carbon footprint. Being a hypocrite is kind of a human nature thing.
We should we do? Stop fearing nuclear power, for starters. Keep installing wind and solar. Keep gradually pecking away at the problem gradually. The main problem ends up being developing nations like China, India, and South America, more than pick up the slack from where western nations reduce emissions. In the end, people in developed countries want to "experience everything" and that leaves a carbon footprint. The virtues of visiting 40 countries in your life is always pushed by the same people who push reducing carbon emission. A bit of cognitive dissonance is human nature.
I personally would be fine with some level of carbon taxes, but more than that, we need to ban private jets. These regulations don't affect the rich because they have so much money they can simply pay. Good luck with that! The rich never want to follow the rules they try to impose on everyone else.
I personally would be fine with some level of carbon taxes, but more than that, we need to ban private jets. These regulations don't affect the rich because they have so much money they can simply pay. Good luck with that! The rich never want to follow the rules they try to impose on everyone else.
It's like when you see a big movie star preaching about being environmentally friendly, talking about the poor penguins that are losing their habitat because of our overconsumption and hence big carbon footprint.
In the meanwhile the star lives in a huge mansion and in fact has 3 huge homes. He travels by private jet... of course. Probably has 6 vehicles. Four boats. Enough clothes to fill a whole house... and the list goes on.
The rich don't care about their carbon footprint. The more you earn, the more you want more "stuff" and to travel and do consume and hence huge carbon footprint.
I agree it's human nature. I don't consume a lot because I can't afford it, it's that simple. But if I won $50 million, you better bet my consumption levels will be much higher.
Most people are egocentric and short sighted. They don't see the problem... out of sight... well you know.
The only people who will change society are the youth who will ultimately pay for our transgressions.
^^^ Utter nonesense.
While methane is is in the realm of 40x more potent a GHG than co2 on a molar basis, it is 10,000x less abundant --> no meaningfull affect on climate....Methane from bio-sources like livestock, is not created from sequestered co2, so it is only participating in the active carbon cycle. It is rapidly oxidized back to co2, so no net change in ghg levels-->no effect on climate.
We could aslo mention that heat being abosorbed by the usual GHGs (co2, NOx, H2O) is already maxxed out, so there's essentially none left for ch4 to absorb. Look up "Extinction of Absorbtion" and the exponential absorbtion relation of co2 vs heat https://climatecite.com/wp-content/u...rb-300x169.png
Facts like these are ignored by the ignorant popular press and actively lied about by the politicians and "scientists" with an agenda....
There is so much of this false info being flung about, it's kinda like evidence of big foot or space aliens-- so many lies and frauds that we have to hold suspect any "facts" stated by the interest groups.
While I'm on a rant-- "runaway gpobl warming" can't happen until the poles are as warm as the tropics- it ain't gunna happen. Things you shouoda learned in school-- heat flows only from warm to cold. Any warming taking place at low lattitudes (nearer the equator) will flow automatically towards the poles, and will cotinue to flow that way keeping the low latitudes un-warmed.....Cf- the satellite record from UAH-- the tropics have not warmed at all in the 44 yr record; the mid-lats have only warmed a few 1/10ths of a degree, but the poles have warmed 5*C-- accounting for virtually all of the "global warming" averaged out to be about 0.56*C over the four decades...With polar temps ~ -35deg. what does a warming to -30 really mean? https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/10...23-0-90-deg-c/
We don't really even have a "problem". No need to discuss meaningless "solutions" that will undoubtedly have adverse, unintended consequences, meteorologically, environmentally, socially and economically.
I recall back in the 70's , we started banning aerosol cans. It had an effect on the ozone.
I'm no college versed person on science and land. Only can be aware of cause and effect.
Once you know the cause , you can create a positive slow down .
I don't want to pick on you personally, Nov3, but your attitude is unfortunately all too prevalent among the college indoctrinated of the last thirty years.
There is NO evidence that co2 causes warming. In fact, there is more evidence that warming increases co2 levels....Not to mention, correleation DOES NOT prove cause & effect (things you shoulda learned in school).
By coincidence (prompting my response to you today. I was gunna let your comment slide) this article came out yesterday, regarding the concept of proving cause & effect and how the "interest group scientists" pushing AGW have ignored it and worked their way around it to enforce their agenda. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/10/...limate-change/
BTW- changing coolants did nothing to change ozone levels. That too is a cyclic thing and o3 levels wax & wane on their own, mere coincidence that they fell as we ignorantly banned CFC refridgerants. Their replacements, CFOs, are even worse for the environment, if we are to believe the warmists, becsuse they are potent GHGs. https://phys.org/news/2023-10-ozone-hole-large.html
Just live away from coaster areas where warm water and storms will create the most impact. But we can’t tell people they are stupid for building a mansion next to the shores and the insurance companies will leave. Climate change is about changing our choices to mitigate weather related disasters. Not some forcing people to buy electric ovens is gonna make any differences. Our government continue to lie and people not holding them accountable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
