I can't understand why has it been so hard recognize and act on CO2.
And it's not only the industry and politicians. Green parties have been the craziest in actively blocking nuclear power.
Why has this been so hard to see?
We've spent way more than that on CO^2 via the Kyoto accords etc. Of course the problem isn't solved, but that's because it's a way bigger problem. We've acted even more on CO^2 than CFC's, but the problem of CFC's was much smaller and easier to solve.
The problem with CO2 is that a lot of the energy requirements are solved by the equations:
coal/petrol/gas + O2 --> CO2 + H2O + energy
energy --> money
whatever --> CO2 + money
But most of the alternative methods are more expensive than a good old coal plant (if you ignore the social cost of pollution and the dangers of coal extraction). I think that nuclear and hydroelectric are cheaper, but they also have some hidden cost.
In 2000, the IPCC gathered the available evidence for a special report which concluded that tree-planting could sequester (remove from the atmosphere) around 1.1–1.6 GT of CO2 per year. That compares to total global greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 50 GT of CO2 in 2004.
http://climatica.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/IPCC_WG3_... (FOLU is forestry and other land use)
<ost of the so-called skeptics don't know any economics beyond basic things like how to find equilibrium pricing between supply and demand curves and some outdated macroeconomic myths, but they know that the majority of people don't get economics and can be easily scared with threats of recession. That's how we wound up with a President that claims climate change is a myth created by the Chinese to steal their jobs and a dominant party that's champing at the bit to sweep away any and all environmental regulation so they can make a quick buck.
In general, it seems the people who are complaining about government subsidies for renewable energy development have no problems with massive government subsidies to the nuclear power industry.
I'm not anti-nuclear, per se, but given the huge potential downsides and massive lead times of current nuclear projects I don't think it's at all "ready to tackle this problem". But we should absolutely fund research into technologies like MSR, thorium, etc. We do need something to replace base loads, and I don't think biomass is going to cut it.
"France’s Nuclear Storm: Many Power Plants Down Due to Quality Concerns"
by Lee Buchsbaum - Power Magazine - (12/01/2016)
There is often a reluctance to support more costly non-CO2 producing approaches to energy production given that those approaches have been around longest and are often cheapest.
Some renewable energy technologies are gaining market acceptance and are cost-competitive with hydrocarbons, but unless Tesla and its peers take off in a big way, hydrocarbons unfortunately aren't going away.
"Green" parties and organizations are infiltrated by double-game lobbyists and influencers from all fronts trying to save their own industry's interests.
What's the easiest way to defeat an adversary? Play it against itself. The same way governments will want to make rebellious opposition groups into violent terrorists, it makes all the sense in the world to make ecologists into irrational, counter-productive idealists.
What kind of powerful (=wealthy) organization benefits short to mid-term from reducing pollution? I fail to see any. The issue of ecology is IMO the hardest fight humanity has had to fight.
Because for ordinary people, the CFC story is a wonderful one. Multi-national co-operation has halted and begun to roll back a serious environmental degredation.
For a small number of people who are slightly less rich thatn they might otherwise have been, though, it was a catastrophe, something that must never be allowed to happen again; much like the public health victories areound tobacco and lead, it energised a small slice of the world to make sure that future efforts (in the current case, the damagfe of greenhouse gases) are never again repeated. No matter what the cost.
Global warming, on the other hand, is a slow death by a thousand cuts. Extreme weather events grow more frequent, fishing becomes less productive, desertification takes more land, the sea rises a little higher, and so on - and the endgame is more complicated and less understandable, too. It's easier to ignore.
From my reading of it, nuclear waste is a thorny political issue, not a technical issue. There's pleny of reasonable solution.
One of my favorites was mixing it into molten glass, pouring that into a steel torpedo shaped tube, and dropping them in the ocean near a subduction zone where there's a few inches of silt per year.
By the time they hit they have enough speed to sink in 10s of eet, won't rupture any time soon, but when they do they will be buried even deeper by silt. Of course eventually they will enter the subduction zone.
On the energy generation side, it's taken pretty advanced tech to get efficiencies upto acceptable levels in Solar and Wind.
Nuclear unfortunately has proven to have drastic fast acting negative externalities on failure (mass evacuation, increase in cancer rates) and tbe Industry has consistently shown lack of competence in preventing failure. So it's no surprise people have soured on it.
Given the trajectory of tech development, I'm fairly confident we'll get there - hopefully before we screw up our climate too much.
With CO2 emissions, serious impacts are all long-term, across multiple generations. On short time scales, it's nontrivial to detect effects, and methodology and measurements are readily disputed.
The truly insidious aspect, though, is how thoroughly committed to massive and persistent change the climate system becomes, before any serious impacts are apparent.
Nuclear power is not a panacea. It looks good on paper but in practice there are tons of hidden costs and failures can be catastrophic. It also pretty much demands hefty regulation, which further adds to the cost in both monetary and social ways.
Finally there is a whole geopolitical order built around fossil fuels. Changing our energy system would fundamentally alter the power balance of the world.
The solution to resource depletion and pollution is to give people what they want in a way that's actually sustainable. Build thicker walls and floors to block sound and conserve energy. Design more efficient lighting and appliances. Develop renewable energy. Etc.
Everything non-essential to human survival is everything that makes us human.
My main concern, and maybe I misread your first comment, is that forcing or guilt-tripping or shaming people into less fulfilling lifestyles is not going to be very productive, IMO.
CO2 produced/energy * energy/person * people on Earth
I know it feels like I'm oversimplifying it, but of course this equation just reduces to the total amount of CO2 produced by humans. There is a ceiling to the rate we can produce it that is compatible with life as we know it on this planet, and we are over that ceiling.
We can tune each of those. CO2/energy - solar, wind, and short term bridge of nuclear; energy/person - more remote work, car sharing, more insulation; # of people - vaccines, birth control access, and other programs to slow population growth.
You have to understand, I believe there is a very harsh reality that we have limited time to solve this problem before we are facing an irrecoverable disaster. Best regards.
> Its failure in 1975 caused more casualties than any other dam failure in history at an estimated 171,000 deaths and 11 million displaced. The dam was subsequently rebuilt.
By the time the flood wave rolled past Baghdad and exhausted itself, as many as one and a half million people could be dead.
1 - http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/02/a-bigger-proble...
While a dam failure may kill more people, a nuclear disaster can leave a place uninhabitable for a thousand years. Radiation sickness and damage is also arguably scarier to the public than risk of physical harm from a dam failure.
A lot of people have some religious argument against Nuclear power - I'm not one of them, but a lot of other people seem to downplay the real risks.
Now im being downvoted because dams kill more people when they fail. I'm sure they do! But that doesn't change the fact that [people other than myself] will continue to oppose nuclear because of its negative PR
I think the issue is that nuclear power is intimately linked to nuclear weapons. As a result, you end up with images like these in the public imagination (Simpsons clips), which have no foundation in reality:
Nuclear fission, right? And let's not forget that coal mining accidents are equally catastrophic for the families of the victims.
>theres no clear reason why humans should be consuming so much electricity and energy
On the contrary, we have no choice but to consume more power. This isn't just a matter of wanting more things: it's about survival.
The talk is about climate change and animal extinctions right now but there's an unlimited number of additional environmental problems to solve if we and our fellow organisms are to survive. Warming, meteor strikes, supervolcanoes, the next ice age -- these are are just four of the known problems.
So we have no choice but to continue to increase our scientific knowledge, technology and wealth. This entails the efficient and safe wielding of greater and greater quantities of energy.
Over the long term, there is no shortage of energy. Unless you're going to argue about Dyson-sphere limits, the Sun provides an amount of energy far in excess of what we'd need. On that scale, the total energy available through fossil fuels and nuclear fission is a drop in the proverbial ocean.
Secondly, many people have become rich due to oil. Those same companies and tycoons pay off politicians hugely.
I completely agree on your second point. It is all about profit.
it is all about the profit for them. genuinely scared of how powerful they are
In my comment, I described that some business owners who fund right wing politicians feel that there is a globalist conspiracy to cut into their biz profit margins, by penalizing carbon waste.
Hence, they feel (((regulation))) is a conspiracy against their personal business empires.
This is all my analysis. It is not to say that I believe people who believe in regulations are Jewish, and that they should be penalized for this.
So I am upset that people downvoted me, if they thought I am an anti-semite
To confirm this, you could just look at the politicians they fund. Hint, they aren't pro-Globalism.
So I don't appreciate that people are downvoting me for using ((())) when I was using it to describe someone's views, not my own
When dealing with politics, people signal who they are based on what actions they actually do. When you research people who are anti-regulation, you may notice some trends.
Since you believe in censoring my discussion of these types of people, the reader will need to google this elsewhere, since apparently to satisfy you, I must not inject one word of potentially controversial information that might offend even just one person
If that level of restraint doesn't interest you, HN might not be the place you want to discuss these types of topics. Regardless of your position, HN members will downvote and flag uncivil and flamewar inciting language.
one day it will be ((())), the next day, someone may be offended that someone is criticizing their company for a product failure, such as at Samsung. This stifled debate of any kind, in my opinion, because there will always be someone who stands to lose something and therefore be offended by a debate that affects their vested interests negatively
If this is something you're concerned about, I suggest taking some time away from commenting on contentious issues (even those you may only suspect are contentious) until you get a better understanding of HN community standards and behavior. For example, if you're going be offended if people downvote your comments and continue to comment on being downvoted, you're going against community guidelines and likely going to attract even more downvotes.
I'm time people will solve these problems. However it's best not to worry because co2 is a natural element that the environment naturally soaks up. I don't think CFCs are naturally absorbed either
Amazon rainforest is being cut enormously. About 90% of cut Amazon is solely for beef production and soy exports for USA beef production.
Of course, the enormous convenient life of average USA citizen might need more government control (24/7 AC, cars everywhere, heavy reliance on animal agriculture etc.) and that stuff costs but it is long-term investment. Of course, no one sees 100 years as long-term, 100 years is invisible. Huge amount of forest also cut for palm oil. The new plant oil that ends up everywhere (sunflower oil turned out more expensive in this millenia).
I've heard from many parents that they don't care if their lifestyle habits promote the business-as-usual culture.
If we get a direction of such a large processes wrong, how the hell are we
so sure that CO2 level is even a source of problem instead of being
It's a feedback loop. The warmer it gets more CO2 gets produced, not just by humans but by nature. The melting of ice caps will produce about 100 years of human CO2 equivalent methane (CO2 yearly production of 2016, I believe).
Humans are the source of the problem. They can remove themselves from the equation but it requires a less convenient life for most.
>Although the maximum limit of Brazilian beef exported to the US could be 64,508 mt, based on market competition it is very unrealistic to think Brazil would overtake the full quota. Longer term (in 2020) these TRQ’s are scheduled to change, and could give Brazil a higher volume ceiling.
>To put this in perspective, in 2015 the US imported 570,740 mt of beef from Australia, 299,955 mt tons from New Zealand, and 285,036 mt from Canada (to name our top 3 sources) for an annual total of 1.5 million mt.
I'd imagine Asia is the major importer of Brazilian Beef, I could be wrong, but don't think so
Brazil (with Argentina) is main soy exporter for most of the worlds livestock.
In the documents below you can find clear numbers of how much hectares is used for pasture, corn, soybean etc. and how much stays forest.
The cause of that deforestation is clear, it is soybean + corn + beef = animal agriculture. Brazil has one of the highest rates of deforestation in the world.
China buys about 60 percent of soybeans traded globally.
In 2011, China accounted for 43% of Brazilian (top destination) and 25% of Argentinean soy exports
Now would you care to back up your statement
>About 90% of cut Amazon is solely for beef production and soy exports for USA beef production.
Nothing you've supplied comes close to asserting this statement
As for the beef and soy exports it's not enough to check just the exports number. The most important number is beef consumption. Per capita the US has a pretty small consumption. But compared to EU or China, the US is leading, extremely in absolute amounts.
There are people high in conscientiousness, who like to follow innumerable rules, moralize others who don't, and administer justice and revenge (on both sides of the political spectrum). There are people high in openness and empathy, who like to think "big picture" and try to improve the world.
These are just personality traits. Both types of people have existed throughout history, exist now, and will exist.
Defeatism will not bring about any change. Build your own platforms, brands, build followings, and change things. The masses have never brought about any change, they only ever did so when being led.
On our current course I'm quite optimistic that we'll be able to turn the ship around - I think between tech accelerating and the climate itself starting to put the screws on us, we'll have powerful enough tools and enough resources poured into them to save ourselves. However, that's if we stay on the apparent current course. I'm really scared we'll hit a discontinuity of some sort.
Release of CO2 has entered a positive feedback loop. Thawing tundra, burning forests, ocean acidification.
Even this we could counter (painfully) with massive industrial scale sequestration.
What worries me is methane. I'm not sure we can mitigate methane released from the tundra. And if the stuff tucked under the ocean pops, we're toast.
If we were in a positive feedback loop, then global warming will just continue to accelerate no matter how small our emissions are. In fact, we'd be equally screwed if we magically stopped emitting CO2 in 1950, it would just take a little bit longer before we're screwed.
Can anyone explain how to reconcile these arguments?
"Arctic and sub-Arctic ecosystems (particularly ombrotrophic bog communities, see Glossary) above permafrost were considered likely to be most vulnerable to climatic changes, since impacts may turn Arctic regions from a net carbon sink to a net source. Literature since the TAR suggests that changes in albedo and an increased release of methane from carbon stocks, whose magnitudes were previously substantially underestimated, will lead to positive radiative climate forcing throughout the Arctic region."
will not be enough of a problem for the most-polluting humans to care about
I live in the country that pollutes the most per capita. I'm ashamed to say I haven't significantly changed my behavior and consumption patterns. But I look around myself and nobody else has either. Heck, we even voted in someone whose team wants to take actions that accelerate climate change. So this party will keep going until something terrible happens that actually impacts the folks at the top.
You shouldn't be ashamed about this per se, because the type of action that will combat climate change is action by governments and corporations. An Inconvenient Truth made everyone think that small personal decisions are the way toward a greener future (think changing your lightbulb), but they aren't.
Using less CO2 (for a given activity) without reducing well being much just means we are becoming more efficient with it. Which means we could potentially use more CO2, globally.
Don't get me wrong, I think individual action is good. But will it solve it? I think the only things that would solve it are:
1. Making a source of energy superior enough to CO2 that people don't even desire carbon
2. Leaving the carbon in the ground
I think #1 may be a precondition for #2.
Of course, if the small personal decisions help develop the technology in #1, they may help more directly than simply reducing consumption.
However, the impacts of an individual, even collectively, don't matter much on this issue. The change has to come in the way energy is generated in the large scale if it's going to make a difference in the problem. It also takes actions from government like a carbon tax or incentives to create more clean energy sources, or both to push these collective decisions in a better direction.
in my opinion it will be more necessary to find a way to suck co2 out of the atmosphere and place it somewhere, rather than attempt to limit how much demand there is for things that produce it as a waste product
That's what forests do, and we're cutting them down with alacrity.
Also, I don't think you're done the "number of humans" x "energy consumption of suv + mcmansion" + "carbon density of likely fuel sources" math yet. It is simply impossible to sustain.
The main benefits from forest are habitats for wildlife, prevention of erosion, and ways to improve biodiversity. Their benefits to climate change are limited to reduced sunlight absorption because of their higher reflectivity and a small amount of a carbon sink if they take over land that was cleared and turned into plains, or farms or whatever.
i am pro forest
and yet many actors from many different societal origins are chopping down trees for furniture, building, fuel, etc etc. If the answer is as simple as "hire a bunch of people to plant trees", then it makes one wonder why money hasn't been diverted for this either at a governmental or charity level
I have a bad memory but I seem to recall Sergey Bring or Larry Wall or someone "important in technology" saying that this is basically already a solved problem -- heavily investing in to CO2 scrubber technology, hooking the things up via solar, and deploying them across the world's deserts -- but that todays problem is that leadership problem you mentioned. No one (Government) wants to foot the bill.
I don't know if I'm a pessimist or a realist.
They'll want complete regulatory rollback in return, which will leave it to the left to decide whether it's a worthwhile trade off.
Personally, I think it is. What happened with Washington State's Carbon Tax proposal is a bad omen though. Had bipartisan consensus but fell apart due to fighting between the left and the left.
But as always there's a few defectors who screw it up for everyone else, eg Koch brothers.
Unless you can get India and China onboard you will solve nothing. You will just end up moving more manufacturing to those countries. Total CO2 emitted will not change.
That wouldn't necessarily prevent high emissions linked to domestic-only consumption-and-production in China, India, and other developing nations, but it would be a powerful incentive as long as those countries have a lot of trade with the developed world. And it would probably tend to make developing nations' domestic-production-for-domestic-consumption activity cleaner by accelerating adoption (and pushing down costs) of lower-carbon technologies starting in export driven industries.
The country would claim "all exports are made from the renewable energy, and all hydrocarbon energy is used for internal consumption".
I suppose you could set import tariffs based on the entire country's energy balance, but then you disincentive any individual producer from doing anything.
On top of that you can "wash" energy. Make solar cells using hydrocarbon energy, then import them to another country and claim "see, we are all solar" - but of course they aren't since the energy used just came from a different country.
As free market perfect as it seem, a CO2 tax is impossible in the details unless it was truly global (which would never work since the incentive for a country to cheap is enormous).
Money used to protect rainforest & other ecologically important places, fund clean energy research, and maybe even to install solar, wind, storage, and car charging points.
The main arguments I've heard against it is that we don't know what the effect will be on the ecosystem:
> The side effects of large-scale iron fertilization are not yet known. Creating phytoplankton blooms in naturally iron-poor areas of the ocean is like watering the desert: in effect it changes one type of ecosystem into another
Well, guess what? We're going to affect the ocean ecosystems negatively if we don't reduce atmospheric CO2, and I don't see that happening any time soon. How about we just go for broke and try it out on the off chance it helps things?
These sorts of solutions are only a good idea if we finally get moved over to a low carbon economy and still find we can't reduce warming any other way.
Barely. If that had been possible at any lower level of intelligence, then it would have happened sooner. We're the stupidest possible technological species.
Personally I think the earth isn't fit for a long term evolution of a technological species, if its environment starts collapsing so soon. Again, 100 years is nothing in the grand scheme of things, and people are arguing that 100 years of technology is destroying the earth. We need a lot longer than 100 years to get anywhere useful.
Evolution is full of times that a species reached a chokepoint and a subgroup with a trait was selected for. No reason ecological disaster caused by technology couldn't be one of those times, even if unfortunate for most humans.
Heck, global ecological disaster could be viewed as a copy-cat oxygenation event prompted by intelligent psychopaths to make room for their offspring in a crowded field.
tl;dr: Humans are just parodying the great oxygenation event with the great carbonation event.
But when even climate warriors like Leonardo DiCaprio and Al Gore show wanton disregard for the cost of their lifestyle on the environment (apparently they like to raise a ruckus, but expect others to do something magical about it), there's little hope for things to get much better any time soon. Talk is cheap, people; Let's see some real action on a personal level.
To start, here's my favorite climate change joke: "They say we won't act until it's too late... Luckily, it's too late!"
So what can you do about it?
Work at a new energy technology company! We are currently growing exponentially, and we need as many smart people as we can get. There are lots of companies hiring software engineers.
How do I find a job fighting climate change?
I'd recommend browsing the exhibitor and speaker lists from the most recent conference in each sector (linked below).
* Energy Storage
* Electric Utilities
* Electric vehicles
Speaking as someone that studied pure mathematics more than science, I am curious as to whether there is formal justification that this interpolation is valid. As far as I understand, global systems like this often, if not always, exhibit chaotic behavior.
While I'm at it, please explain why science has become so politicized by the political right.
I have literally heard my conservative friends say they think "science is leftist" and Obama paid off scientists around the world to blow up a global warming hoax.
Tell me, why would an American political party engage in an elaborate hoax with scientists around the world, and somehow "pay them all off", just so they would... what, raise your gas prices? Subsidize clean energy?
For that matter why would scientists around the world spend years studying complicated subjects, and then decades doing research, and NEARLY ALL accept a bribe from the leftists of YOUR country to sabotage their own sensors and models and data?
Finally - and here is the kicker - what are you afraid of if we transition away from fossi fuels? Electric cars open up electricity to be generated in a variety of ways. Wind farms have just powered OVER HALF of the central USA. Investment in solar has just overtaken fossil fuels. There are plenty of jobs to be made.
Why are the "conservatives" so keen on subsidizing the fossil fuel industry so the government can pick winners and losers? If fossil fuels become too expensive, that means more innovation and investment in clean energy generation!
Where is the economic loss from this? I am always amazed just how much "Stockholm Syndrome" the conservatives have when it comes to big corporations. Whatever they do - big bonuses to CEOs, pollution, etc. it is always rabidly defended by a mob angry that any criticism of their destructive activities, whether by scientists or by people who lost their jobs, is "socialism" and "libtards".
Do you really think preventing the rise of sea levels, deforestation and loss of millions of species through overfishing, factory farms, colony collapse disorder etc. is going to tank your economy? Isn't this the height of idiocy?
I hope I can answer this from a neutral perspective.
The left gave up on implementing global socialism; it was rejecting by the populations of almost every country in the world, when given a democratic choice.
Then climate change came along and with it solid scientific evidence. The left jumped on it as a reason to implement a global anti-capitalist societal change towards the left. Therefore green issues were hijacked by the left, and the right responded by being anti-green.
And that's how we ended up in the absurd situation we are in now.
If you look at "the right" you have:
1. Religious Conservatives that genuinely believe the Earth is 6000 years old and Evolution is a complete fabrication. These people have always been anti-Science. Antivaxxers and climate change denialists are a just the latest round of this.
2. People who are employed or supported by the fossil fuel industry. This is the same unreasonable skepticism that you hear from the Tobacco industry, the Patent trolls, or any other group with alot of money and few scruples. They found allies in "the Right" who could use their campaign dollars and didn't care much about this issue so they just go along with it as it allowed them to get backing for issues they do care about.
3. People who just don't like "the left" and believe that if people they don't like are saying it, it must be false. This is probably the largest bloc. They don't care about climate change (much) and just follow the lead on this issue because the people who are saying "climate change isn't happening" also agree with them on a number of other issues that they do care about.
I'm not sure how we go about fixing it. Its very frustrating.
Conservatives and their fellow-travelers have an obsession with this idea that humans are and should always be completely discreet entities with the fewest inter-connecting responsibilities as possible. It's the ultimate narcissistic ideology. It doesn't help that when people believe that their best interests are when they're divided, they're most easily preyed upon by those who REALLY hold the reins of power. The conservative ideology is Condorcet's Secret writ large.
As you've probably deduced, heading off the worst effects of Climate Change is probably the biggest collective action problem humankind has yet encountered.
Edit: Science doesn't win when you downvote inconvenient questions.
There are a number of theories on what starts and stops ice ages, none of them having to do with human intervention, sure. Does that mean that the rise of CO2, especially if it comes from human activity, shouldn't be reduced now? I think not.
Edit: I'm not arguing against reducing CO2 emissions. I'm just saying that it probably won't happen. That shit will happen. And that, over the long term, natural selection will deal with it all.
Please select your desired counter-point.
- "At least I vaccinate my children."
- "I'm having a dinner party, GMOs and gluten okay?"
- "I'm sure homeopathic hemp water will cure cancer someday."
- "Sorry these responses are so rude. I'm a Sagittarius."
- "I'm not sure what I'm more scared of: chem-trails or nuclear power."
- "After this conversation, my aura will be radiating 'pro-science'."
If you stopped and said to yourself, "I don't believe any of those!" Congratulations, use your new found empathy to find common ground with conservatives who do accept climate change.
It may come as a shock but some people want to help the environment and don't want socialism. Go figure!
As someone who has worked in science for several years, questioning is central to understanding any scientific inquiry--especially with regard to such an incredibly complex and nuanced field as climatology. If these questions are continuously suppressed our understanding will ultimately be skewed.
I only hope that we can continue this discourse on such an important subject without resorting to immediate emotional responses in order to come to the most accurate picture that we possibly can.
And for the most part, people don't want to educate themselves on this issue because you end up being either completely worried about what is happening and discouraged about the future, or you end up having to start examine critically many other points of Conservative ideology which can turn into alot of introspection and work that most people don't want to do.
Two questions to ponder -
Is climate change "good" or "bad"?
What causes climate change?
I suspect that the largest driver is solar activity.
Anyway, please keep "left" vs "right" out of this.
Just interested in the magnitude of what's really happening.
And the USA isn't alone
When the government stops subsidizing fossil fuels 10x more than renewables, look what happens:
But Trump and the Republicans might reverse that again.
"The vast sum is largely due to polluters not paying the costs imposed on governments by the burning of coal, oil and gas. These include the harm caused to local populations by air pollution as well as to people across the globe affected by the floods, droughts and storms being driven by climate change."
It's not that there isn't something important to be discussed there, but if that's the type of subsidy you're referring to when you say "oil is subsidized", it's going to be a messy, inconclusive argument, at least in part because your argument is based on (necessarily) made up numbers.
> When the government stops subsidizing fossil fuels 10x more than renewables, look what happens
No, that's what happens when renewables technology becomes economically competitive, this has nothing at all to do with the subsidy noted above.
"In contrast, estimates from the International Energy Agency (IEA) released in June showed that $557bn was spent by governments during 2008 to subsidise the fossil fuel industry."
...citing a document behind a paywall. So once again, I have no idea what the nature of these "subsidies" are.
From the 3rd:
"But over the course of the parliament, the department has given financial support worth just £3.6m to green energy projects around the world, data released to the Guardian under freedom of information rules shows.
By comparison, UKEF allocated £1.13bn to help fossil fuel energy operations in the same period, 314 times more. The support was in the form of loans, loan guarantees and other export credit support."
Referencing the cited link, one example is: "A US$367 million loan provided to JSC Gazprom to finance an export contract won by Rolls-Royce Power Engineering for the supply and installation of natural gas pumping units for the completion of a new compressor station near Vyborg, Northwestern Russia".
So unless I am mistaken, the entire value of a loan is claimed to be a subsidy. That is beyond intellectually dishonest, and that is just one example of why I do not trust the left, environmentalists, etc - very often, advocates on that side simply do not have a background for critical thought, mathematics, etc; they simply do not have the skills to properly assess the actual nature of many if not most of the things they are criticizing, and in my experience they are most definitely not interested in discussion in order to come to some agreement of what the truth is.
But until then, calling this a "subsidy" of the oil industry is a bit of a mischaracterization. (But not complete, as these costs should most definitely be included in a comprehensive analysis when setting policy.)
2. Domestic jobs, especially in places like North Dakota or Louisiana which wouldn't have nearly the tax base they do without coal and oil jobs.
There are some legitimate criticisms of science to be had, but before I get to those, I would like to talk about the less concrete issues surrounding the problem.
1) The American education system is failing to adequetly inculcate a scientific mindset in the populous.
2) Media filter-bubbles abuse this lack of scientific education to push agendas of one type or another.
3) The poorer population in general and the political right specifically have a social history of distrust, often rightful, of the intelligensia, academia, and the business and political elite.
4) None of these issues are purely tied to any political party, and are much more about social class and social mobility issues rather than left/right false paradigms.
5) Lack of monetary power and what is essentially wage slavery for a vast majority of the populace reduces the amount of time available for people to engage in intellectual pursuit of self-improvement. (combined with the relatively new requirement of both man and woman to work to sustain what formerly a man could sustain, further impacting childrens education)
So that's how you get a group of politically far right people denying climate change in general without any understanding of the issue specifically: first, they haven't done any reading of their own, (due to 1 and 5), the little information they do get is through a corporate/government infiltrated filter bubble (2), and this manifests itself via (3) in the form of complete dismissal of arguments.
Now, on to some more specific scientific criticisms.
A) Scientific quality is not nearly as good as you think. Papers themselves are used to further careers, and less and less are peer-reviewed (or peer-reviewable due to high specialization and/or costs). Journals often have a monetary interest in publishing and do at best lackluster job of editorial filtering, and often the actual science for the general public is behind a paywall despite the fact most of it is publicly funded. That's not even getting into the vast glut of just plain bad science being published, even in good journals. I held science up on a pedestal until as a sysadmin at a genetics company I started actually reading them as a job requirement... bad science abounds and is rarely called out.
B) Scientific claims are often highly exaggerated or misinterpreted by the political and business class for self-interested pursuits. We have all seen this in action, where a paper says something relatively benign but it is taken completely out of context to support some initiative or another.
So that's just a start to answer your many politically charged questions, and I would like to say I do highly protest the divisive and polarizing manner in which you verbalized them. Part of the key probem in this country is this hegellian labeling of the other, whether it is on the right or the left or anywhere in between. Personally, I think the real war is between the up and down factions (eg, the uber-rich and the middle-class and the poor), but your dismissive manner is unlikely to be anything but abrasive to anybody but the most intellectual of the conservatives.
To illustrate a small example of the kind of distrust of intellectuals, allow me to tell a small story: My grandfather was a logger in the rocky mountain forests in the 70's, working with native americans, and I grew up in the national forest. I remember throughout my childhood, him advocating to the forest service along with other old-timer loggers that they needed to allow them to thin-out the forests by selective logging (not clearcutting) or else there would be major issues down the road. All the PHD environmentalists the forest service hired though dismissed all their sage advice and thought they knew better, reduced controlled burn actions to almost nill and thought everything was going swimmingly... until the pine beetle infestation took hold, and then within a 10 year period we had two forest fires that burned 538,049 acres and 468,638 acres respectively. When they happened I remember my grandfathers words, which I had dismissed as crazy old timer talk being dismissive of the scientists awesome knowledge, and realized he was right. That's a good example of the kind of intellectual bubble the scientists can create that fosters mistrust in the lower classes and in the right in particular.
A question I've pondered many, many times. I believe it's because they are angry that businesses have to lose any profits dealing with the effects of producing less pollution.
The rest of your rant sounds like thoughts I've had going on in my mind. In a loop. It drives me crazy some days.
We should call them what they are: Deniers.
Science doesn't have believers and deniers.
If you deny that science is real, that is being a science denier. If you believe that it is real, that is being a science believer.
Because the human mind is extremely susceptible to delusion. Delusions which are more important to the holder than reality.
It's hard to admit that you might very well be wrong. That your well-intentioned actions may very well be causing damage not only to the world, but to you yourself. It's much easier to deny that, and claim (evidence to the contrary) that your intentions are well and good.
Otherwise intelligent and functional people can hold dear the most ludicrous delusions. Because they're emotionally important.
And in the end, emotion over-rules reason for most cases.
Edit No, I don't mean the scientists are delusional. I mean the climate change deniers are. Pay attention, people.
> Ocean models predict a decline in the dissolved oxygen inventory of the global ocean of one to seven per cent by the year 2100, caused by a combination of a warming-induced decline in oxygen solubility and reduced ventilation of the deep ocean.
> It is thought that such a decline in the oceanic oxygen content could affect ocean nutrient cycles and the marine habitat, with potentially detrimental consequences for fisheries and coastal economie
This kind of gratuitous politically-charged commentary is frowned upon and discouraged here.
You're more than welcome to express your opinion without resorting to dismissive or inflammatory language that wouldn't add to the discussion.
Enjoy your time here
And even disregarding the fact that this statement is a red herring, using your logic, there's a 2% chance that someone else could win. That means there is still a chance, no matter how small.