New Hurricane Thread

A carbon tax would not take us back to a 19th century standard of living any more than an income tax has. That's ridiculous. It would, at the margins spur the use of non-fossil fuels, increase sales of fuel-efficient vehicles, and the like.

 

A couple of really good megavolcano eruptions and there will be so much stuff in the upper atmosphere, scattering and absorbing the suns rays before they reach the surface of the Earth, we will get a lot cooler and people will begin clamoring about what to do about global cooling.

And that’s when nukes will fly, we temporarily get warm, then head into nuclear winter.

And die.

THE END

How do you like my science report, Ms. Evans?

 

An admitted bit of hyperbole on my part, but there are plenty of folks out there -- including some in positions of power -- who would drop everything gasoline-powered into a giant wood chipper if they could. As I said, it also ignores the realities of poorer and developing nations like India and China telling us to go fuck ourselves as they play catch up on the technological and economic scale.

 

China's non-fossil energy efforts put ours to shame. Admittedly, they have much further to go and further admittedly, when you don't have elections, big changes like that are easier to effect. India is a much bigger problem, probably the biggest energy use problem the world will face in the next 50 years.

 

I'd say China needs to do non-fossil stuff not because of any altruistic global warming concerns, but because of health concerns.

 

Most people who would drop everything gasoline-powered into a wood chipper truly wouldn’t do so without a functional replacement. Nobody is advocating “going back to the 19th century,” but there are some concerned about people who have a vested interest in the status quo blocking efforts to find alternatives.

I spent two weeks in New Delhi this year. If you want to smell what a world without environmental regulations smells like, go check that out. Their day of reckoning with the environment is coming fast.

 

Never understood our reluctance to develop alternative, environmentally sound, carbon-friendly energy sources.

Except as a function of Exxon's bottom line.

 

It can be both, and more. There are health concerns, environmental concerns, and there's also the fact that wind, solar, and hydroelectric power don't need to be imported into a country where energy demands are projected to increase considerably in the next 15-20 years. (Renewables also happens to be a growth sector where American competition has suddenly waned for reasons we need not touch on here.) The problem for the government/CCP is that large parts of China's industrial base are still hooked on cheap, 'dirty' energy sources like coal and can't be shut down for refitting without significant disruption to the economy (and thus Party legitimacy).

 

If there were some sort of global cooperative willing to help incentivize a conversion to renewables, that might make things easier for us all.

India and China could still have their "Industrial Revolution," without the rest of us paying such a high environmental price for it.

 

We'd also be able to uncouple ourselves from bad political actors in the Middle East.

Renewables seem like a win, win, win.

 

Good discussion, all.

I do agree that it's a lazy media device to just scream GLOBAL WARMING without any real evidence to back it up whenever a major meteorological event hits. It's just as lazy when people scream that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the left. I thought the linked PBS article did a nice job in this passage of trying to walk the line.

 

Convincing taxpayers in developed nations to send their money to poor, brown countries that are already accused of 'stealing' their jobs and 'cheating' them on trade, all in the name of preventing something the former group can't even agree is happening in the first place?

I'm glad I'm not the PR flak who has to stand up in public and make that case.