So let me get this straight

[Vllad]

Now that tempatures are cooling that proves that our globe is heating up?

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/science/earth/23cool.html?_r=2&scp=3&sq=revkin&st=cse">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/scien ... kin&st=cse</a><!-- m -->




Vllad

[Hoofhurr]

The problem with climate change is that temperature change is a lagging indicator and global temperature change is even harder to pin down on short time scales because of regional variations in temperature. Much like the economy where at best economists are guessing whether or not we've just been in a recession or are climbing out of a recession we can't conclusively say much until after the fact. The best you can do is examine the trend and attempt to project those trends into the future. It's a matter of probabilities and most of the science still points to a high probability that the globe is warming even as the earth may have equilibrium oscillations that might mask the larger trends.

[Diggles]

if the poles stay hot enough to keep melting the ice, it releases too much COLD fresh water, which breaks the underwater current circulation around the globe and then we are totally fucked beyond fixing

[Slamz]

I think this is why they're calling it "climate change" rather than "global warming" now.

Summary:
The earth is going to get hotter, and then it's going to get colder, but maybe not in that order and not in any particular time frame. All we know is that we need to spend a lot of money on stuff.

[Hoofhurr]

How much money have we really spent on climate change? Who is benefiting from this spending? Sure certain companies are but are the environmental minded lobbies so much more rich and powerful than the energy companies that the energy companies lobbies couldn't ferret out and disprove such an obnoxious lie?

It seems like if you were going to try and make a buck, convincing the world that the world is warming so that you could move a few solar panels wouldn't be the first thing you'd try. It's fairly ambitious and prohibitively difficult to fight the most powerful organizations and richest governments in the world head on and convince a globe of people that they should overhaul 100 years of energy infrastructure and policy. Talk about a risky investment. What business minded person would tackle that goal in the pursuit of pure profit? It seems like it would take you decades to make any money on that venture if you ever made any at all.

It just doesn't seem plausible as a business model. The people that study this stuff are not motivated by profit as hard as that may be to believe. If all scientists were in it for profit this would not be the way you would try and make money. You'd work for the big energy companies.

Hell even if you were trying to sell technology and research related to the environment or the energy industry, global warming would be the worst angle to push. Health, Pollution, and national security are far better selling points than global warming. So either these climatologists are the craftiest capitalists in the world, really stupid or really convinced that the globe is warming due to anthropogenic causes and are afraid of the consequences.

[Slamz]

That's probably tough to answer. The government doesn't spend much on it. There was some stuff in the stimulus bill to convert federal buildings to green technology and there's proposals for the 2010 budget to spend a fair chunk of cash on renewable energy but I think the real cost would have to be measured by looking at what industry has spent on compliance with regulations.

But even there you'd probably want to try and separate "anti-pollution" regulations from "anti-global warming" regulations. That is, I'm sure our country has spent billions if not trillions on "going green" collectively but a lot of that was aimed at stopping pollution or conservation of resources and not, specifically, "global warming". However, anything about reducing CO2 emissions would be an expense aimed directly at global warming, since I don't think CO2 was previously considered to be a "pollutant".

"Cap and trade" is still on the table as well, and my understanding of that is it's going to be a big expense in the name of combating global warming.

[Thudz]

If you remove all the CO2 from the atmosphere all the trees will suffocate. Why do people hate trees?

[Hoofhurr]

Following the money on global warming it also doesn't make sense that the federal government created global warming to spend more of our money on it. Say what you will about the fedgov, it's still run primarily by the will of the people and special interests, neither of which has any possible interest whatsoever in the validity of global warming. It's going to cost us a shitload of money if it's true whether we do something about it or not, and the special interests have absolutely no reason to change the energy paradigm from its current state. So why is global warming still out there? Why are the people pushing the issue pushing the issue? If they are just now making money on an idea that began 40 years ago that was a horrible investment of time and energy.

[Slamz]

Eh? Special interests have a stake in it. Certainly General Electric has a number of green technologies that would bring in a lot of profit if we suddenly went green crazy. GE also owns NBC, so they have both the will and the means to promote global warming hysteria for personal profit if they choose.

The real question, IMO, has never been "climate change". We know that the earth has varied from near iceball to near jungle over its lifetime. The real question is whether or not recent trends are manmade and if it's manmade, can we do anything about it (and perhaps as a subset, can we do anything about it if China and India don't do anything about it).


My fear has always been that we impose regulations and spend a lot of money basically ruining our country and end up having global warming anyway, either because it wasn't manmade after all or because America's contribution to it wasn't significant. Or perhaps more accurately, by imposing regulations I worry that we don't actually reduce global CO2 levels so much as we simply drive businesses out of America, where they will continue to pollute, but somewhere else. We hurt ourselves locally but gain nothing globally.

[Hoofhurr]

GE has WAY more to gain by staying with and improving upon the vast inventory of coal and gas technologies it has already developed than by pushing green policy. Why not just continue to make that which is already selling and develop green technology on the side as a contingency? What would be the point of spending cash lobbying to change energy policy? They're not getting an edge on the competition by changing policy. They'd be hurting their own coal and gas subsidiaries while opening up the playing field for green-focused companies that are currently not players in the energy industry. Doesn't make sense.

Again, why are people talking about CO2 and Cap and Trade? Who benefits from rising CO2 levels? Who is making money on this? Are those beneficiaries really that much more powerful and motivated than the companies of the existing paradigm? How are the 'CO2 is warming the planet' companies winning this argument if it is patently false? The burden of proof if on them and they have fewer resources to prove their point. This should have gone away a long time ago if there wasn't any truth to it.

If Cap and Trade is going to drive some businesses out of the country, and this is pretty clear, then it must be those countries that stand to gain the companies we lose that are driving the debate. So are China and India and the like influencing the CO2 debate? How is it that all the first world countries (with so much to lose by holding themselves to higher standards) even considering these policy changes?

I just fail to see how this political view turned scientific paradigm called "CO2" could withstand and overturn an entrenched energy industry, general public apathy, and political inertia.

So GE is pushing to change energy policy greenward so that it has to do deal with policies like Cap and Trade which effectively making the business environment more hostile for its gas and coal businesses? Why would they do this?

I'm still searching for the beneficiaries of a greenward change in policy due to rising CO2 and asking myself how and why they pulled it off.

[Vllad]

While in general I don't think this is a money issue, to answer your question more specifically Hoof there is plenty of money at stake.

Dow, General Dynamics, 3M and every alternative fuel manufacture which includes the US food industry certainly have a ton of products and plenty to gain from an industrial perspective.

Plus just follow the money politically. Green political contributions in this decade are almost 27 million dollars, while that is only 11% of what the anti green (oil companies etc) contributions are where they have succeeded is in lobbying efforts. Still 27 million is no joke.

Because most Green groups are non profit they are not allowed to make political contributions. However they are not banned from hiring lobbiest. Pro-enviormental, alternative energy groups employe almost 2500 lobbiest which out numbers anti-enviormental, carbon based groups by 4 to 1.

Lets not forget that now our own goverment owns two car companies it is in the best interest of the US to continue to push hybrids etc. Just look at the small print of new GM commercials, "paid for by the US Treasury Department".

Think of this issue like Abortion. It originally starts as people not wanting to kill babies. However it ends up becoming a political issue through and through which in the end bastardizes the original intent.

100% of the pro-enviormental contributions and lobbiest efforts have gone to Democrats. The issue is a defining line between Democrats and Republicans just like Abortion.

While Abortion and its resolution isn't a political issue it became one. To sway people on Abortion is to sway people politically. To sway people on Global Warming means to sway people politically.

In other words it is a political marketing sceme. How better to create more Democrats between the age of 18 to 24 then by dominating the advertising and promtion of the concept of trying to make the world a better place. Who doesn't want to do that?

Once you make an issue a political one now even more money is at stake. More money gets spent to win the political battle which has no real relevance to resolving the original issue at all. More money is being spent to win the Abortion/Global warming issue politically then will ever be spent to solve them.


Vllad

[Dustie]

I think the best course of action is to shutdown all power plants around the world until we figure this out.

[Jakensama]

Nuclear power.

Amazing how the greens vehemently oppose the abundant power source with no emissions.

[Thudz]

Nuclear power.

Amazing how the greens vehemently oppose the abundant power source with no emissions.

Fearmongering and Ignorance are a potent combination.

[Jakensama]

Obviously, or niether major political party would be around today.

[Hoofhurr]

Very well thought out. That's one of the missing pieces I was hunting for. I'm always interested in the motivating factors and the players when trying to figure out the truth of something. That being said, 27 million might be significant but is still heavily outweighed by the funding for the opposing lobbies and is still a david vs goliath boxing match. It makes good sense to me that the green industry started out for purely ideological reasons and has now become politicized, but I'm still skeptical that the few companies that stand to gain something out of a greenward politicization have somehow out-maneuvered the existing massive energy complex. For the sake of argument, let's say they've gained a foothold.

Ok so what's happening then? Let's say a segment of american companies are actually influential enough to shift the energy industry greenward. Are the dem politicians pushing ideas like cap and trade as an isolated power grab or are they being prompted by american non-profits and american for-profits? It's more likely that these officials are working on behalf of these organizations in my mind. If that's the case then isn't a sector of the american economy actually benefiting from these changes? Are they just being stupid and shooting themselves in the feet or would these policies grow and diversify the economy?

I guess the question is what are we really losing by going green? If it's American companies and our european trading partners that are benefiting then aren't we doing fine on balance?

[Vllad]

Ok so what's happening then? Let's say a segment of american companies are actually influential enough to shift the energy industry greenward. Are the dem politicians pushing ideas like cap and trade as an isolated power grab or are they being prompted by american non-profits and american for-profits?

While there is money at stake in general Green in reality will never be able to shift industry because Green in general is full of more shit then the anti-enviormental groups.

1. There is no alternative fuel. That is a myth. There isn't any non carbon based fuels that can actually meet our energy needs.

2. Green energy savings is a mostly a myth. Buy a green washer or dryer, it will save you 9 dollars a month but you pay $300 more to purchase it. It takes almost three years to break even and by that time your warrenty is already done. Any repairs or replacement and you end up paying more.

3. Pollution controls. They don't work. We spend millions of dollars on emission controls which reduce horse power on trucks therefore they pull less tonnage. In the end we end up running more trucks to make up for the lost tonnage and therefore negating any loss of emissions put into the air.

Take the politics out of the green and green is nothing but a feel good fart in the wind. We should be mindful of our enviorment and should be taking care of it however now it is just a Marketing Slogan to play on peoples emotions to sell more products.

Saying something is green is like saying something is organic or good for your collestral.


Vllad

[Diggles]

While there is money at stake in general Green in reality will never be able to shift industry because Green in general is full of more shit then the anti-enviormental groups.

1. There is no alternative fuel. That is a myth. There isn't any non carbon based fuels that can actually meet our energy needs.

2. Green energy savings is a mostly a myth. Buy a green washer or dryer, it will save you 9 dollars a month but you pay $300 more to purchase it. It takes almost three years to break even and by that time your warrenty is already done. Any repairs or replacement and you end up paying more. Vllad

So this is why Toyota cant make enough Prius's to meet the demand right? Because theres no such thing as alternative energy.

So this is why the government is so concerned there will be fuel efficient cars that they are thinking about a miles driven tax to replace the gasoline tax, right?

THe problem is the government is too big and has too much influence, which increases the effect of lobbiests exponentially. Without industry lobbys stomping out competition via alternatives, there would be much better choices than we have right now.

Green energy is not a magic bullet, 1 size fits all replacement energy. Its a combination of common sense and creative solutions to replace a signifcant portion of energy demand.

[Vllad]

So this is why Toyota cant make enough Prius's to meet the demand right? Because theres no such thing as alternative energy.

Thats right, hybrids are a poor solution to conservation.

I don't care how many they sell, that only means there marketing worked. Hybrids are still a joke. Hybrids can't operate in extreme weather with out significant reductions in fuel cost.

Hybrids in Buffalo including the Prius is a major problem. The car can't warm up in 10 degree weather which taxes the gasoline engine and cracks the batteries. Same problem with Hybrids in Arizona. If you have to run your air all of the time the fuel savings die.

You can save more on fuel by buying small match box cars that get 45 per gallon with a pure carbon based engine then you ever can with a Hybrid.

In the end conservation is not a solution. Non carbon based fuels are a solution. Quit listening to marketing departments, Hybrids aren't Green they are Yellow.

Cars that operate on pure battery power or some other non carbon based fuel is Green.


Vllad

[Hoofhurr]

I disagree with you about alternative energy. Between solar and wind energy we should really be able to meet the global economy's electricity needs. Transportation and shipping over continental distances will likely be fossil fuel based for some time to come but household, business, and commuting needs we should be met within my lifetime methinks. I also wonder if they won't get fusion working before I die.

As far as conservation is concerned...conservation is just another way to say 'don't be wasteful' which every business and government should be mindful of anyway. Best most effective use of your resources.

[Diggles]

So this is why Toyota cant make enough Prius's to meet the demand right? Because theres no such thing as alternative energy.

Thats right, hybrids are a poor solution to conservation.

I don't care how many they sell, that only means there marketing worked. Hybrids are still a joke. Hybrids can't operate in extreme weather with out significant reductions in fuel cost.

Hybrids in Buffalo including the Prius is a major problem. The car can't warm up in 10 degree weather which taxes the gasoline engine and cracks the batteries. Same problem with Hybrids in Arizona. If you have to run your air all of the time the fuel savings die.

You can save more on fuel by buying small match box cars that get 45 per gallon with a pure carbon based engine then you ever can with a Hybrid.

In the end conservation is not a solution. Non carbon based fuels are a solution. Quit listening to marketing departments, Hybrids aren't Green they are Yellow.

Cars that operate on pure battery power or some other non carbon based fuel is Green.

Vllad

Christ Vllad, do you have alztimers or demensia? I would think someone involved with shipping industry would have a better understanding of this shit.

Does the majority of the world live in Buffalo? No. Do they even live in regions that get snow? NO, they live in cities, so the overall energy savings of a hybrid cars and trucks is ENORMOUS. You know that UPS is starting to buy large hybrid trucks that save 50% fuel?

You are completely wrong about a pure battery car being more green than a hybrid. Besides having bigger toxic batteries, how do you think a battery gets charged? 75% of the electricy is generated with fossil fuels. Whereas a hybrid using wasted inertial energy, completely carbon free.

Yes, lets just waste energy with braking instead of harnessing that wasted energy in city driving and doubling our milage. Like I said, there is no magic bullet energy replacement for fossil fuels. Your expectations are frankly insane. Hydrogen is already accepted as the replacement for gasoline, but ways of harvesting it need improvement. (ie...excessive solar/wind/fusion energy to power electrolysis on sea water)

[Breand]

The argument Ive always heard against hybrids is that people ignore the amount of waste and energy spent just building one. A true conservationist would buy a used car that gets 30+ mpg so that their money isnt being spent on making a new car and all the energy and material requirements that goes into building one. Buying a Prius is more about image than conservation. It makes the statement: "Well I care about the environment, but not enough to be content with an economical used car."

[Hoofhurr]

Fair argument. This gets back to my notion that the consumer is really shielded from the true cost of products. Supposedly, reducing meat in your diet would have a much larger environmental benefit than anything else you could do. Not many are prepared to go that far.

[Dustie]

I guess the question is what are we really losing by going green? If it's American companies and our european trading partners that are benefiting then aren't we doing fine on balance?

You and I aren't losing so much, but the average American making less then 37K per year is losing a lot. I don't agree that consumers are protected. David Sokol from Mid American Energy is on record as saying "all these extra costs from cap and trade will be passed on to the consumers." This is just a fact. The utilities companies are regulated to the point where they operate on paper thin margins. Its not a matter of making the utilities eat the cost, its a matter of "there is no margin in the utilities where the cost can be eaten." The consumer is the last stop in this ride.

I wish I could find the YouTube of Sokol. Yes, to Sokol you will listen. Find it I will.

Edit:
Here's Buffet, but not really the whole thing I wanted:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoCsFsU_irY[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoCsFsU_irY

[Vllad]

Christ Vllad, do you have alztimers or demensia? I would think someone involved with shipping industry would have a better understanding of this shit.

Does the majority of the world live in Buffalo? No. Do they even live in regions that get snow? NO, they live in cities, so the overall energy savings of a hybrid cars and trucks is ENORMOUS. You know that UPS is starting to buy large hybrid trucks that save 50% fuel?

Actually the majority of Americans do live in places just like Buffalo. The complete northern half of the US with exception of the North West. Then throw in the entire south including Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and you have the majority of Americans living in extreme temptatures. Not everyone lives in places like San Fran or LA.

I am aware of the UPS Hydraulic Hybrid. I hear them bitch about it every year at the NITL meetings. Again as I have said many times the loss of HP means they lose capacity which requires the use of more trucks therefore negating the emissions you cut down by using them in the first place. Again you are falling for a myth not reality.

You are completely wrong about a pure battery car being more green than a hybrid. Besides having bigger toxic batteries, how do you think a battery gets charged? 75% of the electricy is generated with fossil fuels. Whereas a hybrid using wasted inertial energy, completely carbon free.

This just proves my point. Green is a myth.

Yes, lets just waste energy with braking instead of harnessing that wasted energy in city driving and doubling our milage. Like I said, there is no magic bullet energy replacement for fossil fuels. Your expectations are frankly insane. Hydrogen is already accepted as the replacement for gasoline, but ways of harvesting it need improvement. (ie...excessive solar/wind/fusion energy to power electrolysis on sea water)

I have no expectations so I am not sure what you mean by that. I do however live in reality and not the fanatsy that you seem to live in. For example there are no Hydrogen engines out there being produced in usable vehicles. Why? It cost to damn much. It may be green but only in someones head. It isn't real until someone starts producing Hydrogen automobiles and trucks that are being used on the road then we can talk about Hydrogen.

In the mean time you can't change the laws of physics. If you burn carbon based fuels, the end result will always be the release of carbon gasses.

Getting back to the point that seems to be lost on you is Green is a political issue and not something we are actually dealing with in any real sense today. I don't disagree that Hybrids aren't a good stepping stone but they aren't Green. Like I said they are more like yellow. If we were really dealing with it we would have things like Hydrogen automobiles and a ton more nuclear plants.


Vllad