Farts and Climate Change

[pErvinalia]

Governments are the only way to solve this. It's not going to happen via private enterprise. And it's not necessarily a case of giving the government money. They can just shift the subsidies from fossil fuels to renewables.

[Cunt]

You really have faith in Trump and Co.

It's weird.

I wonder if you would trust the Trump administration enough to turn over all your weapons. For your own safety. Call it the 'wounded knee' style of government protection.

[pErvinalia]

I don't trust Trump one bit. I don't expect him to do anything about global warming. Any action will have to come after he's gone.

[Cunt]

So the NEXT government will be SURELY trustworthy, and we can just give them a bunch of money, and it will be good.

What's our measure for success by the way? Is there a real goal? Or is it just like feminism where there is no clear end goal, so that it can go on forever?

[pErvinalia]

God you are tedious.

[Cunt]

I should have known you would tire under any direct questions. Sorry, I forgot. Have a nap, old friend.

[Forty Two]

There are no accusers, he is just hoping some of his imaginary friends will cause you to answer.

Then why was Farty crying into his Wheaties, about being accused of being a denier.

I'm not. You started this thread. I posted information about the impact of the livestock industry on greenhouse gases, and for some reason that set a lot of people off. I also favor technological solutions rather than non-market based authoritarianism, and that bothers people - because to be "not a denialist" you not only have to accept the science, you have to accept leftist political and economic solutions.

What you have to accept (if you are a non-denier) is that the consequences of "steady as she goes" will be to cause more and more damage to the biosphere (and human civilisation), and that we need to employ the most effective programs to reduce CO2 emissions, as quickly as possible. There will certainly be a need for innovative technology, but you may simply need to accept that we will also need a level of government intervention that conservatives may feel unpalatable. For much "normal" economic activity, free market solutions can be effective (with some clear limits), but climate change will require solutions which are beyond the power of "the invisible hand"...

I haven't advanced the position of "steady as she goes." There may be a need for formerly unpalatable governmental intervention; however, that need does not mean that all government interventions are effective and warrant acceptance. You need to accept the fact that there are some proposed solutions that are not appropriate.

[Forty Two]

Governments are the only way to solve this. It's not going to happen via private enterprise. And it's not necessarily a case of giving the government money. They can just shift the subsidies from fossil fuels to renewables.

There really aren't "subsidies" to the fossil fuel industry that can be "shifted" to another industry. https://www.forbes.com/sites/drillingin ... d45f966e1c

It's not like the oil companies received Solyndra-like payments. What folks include as among the "subsidies" to the fossil fuel industry include tax credits that aren't specific to the fossil fuel industry. To call that a subsidy is to call anything under 100% tax a "subsidy."

Where the fossil fuel industry receives a tax benefit that other companies don't get, then that would be something to talk about. But, again, that's not "shifting" a subsidy. One would just repeal the tax code provision in question.

In the main, however, shifting around subsidies and tax credits/deductions is not going to get the job done. What needs to happen is enough power needs to be generated in a manner that does not expel nearly as much carbon into the air.

I don't oppose all government involvement. I just want it to make sense. And, I don't appreciate the argument that whatever is suggested must be supported because climate change -- so many times a Pascal Wager type argument ("what if you're wrong...") is raised regarding climate change remediation plans. The intent behind the plan is to reduce carbon and save the planet, if I'm wrong, the planet is still here and fine and all we've done is spend some money or enact an ineffective but good-intentioned policy -- if you're wrong, the planet dies! Or, the argument "who can be against cleaning up the planet???!!! Even if this measure does not solve the planet, at least it's trying..." I don't accept those kinds of arguments.

[Scot Dutchy]

Three for the price of one.

[Cunt]

We live in a town run on diesel, mainly.

The diamond mines offered to bring in a nuclear power plant to meet their needs, and leave it with the Territories after they go, providing MUCH low-emissions power.

The locals, who genuinely are against ruining the earth, chose diesel, trucked up from the south. Who wants to deal with nuclear waste? It would be sitting there, on our yard, waiting for treatment.

The clouds of emissions just blow 'away', and are a lot easier to sell to the 'stakeholders' (in this case being indigenous governments and Canadian politicians)

[JimC]

Forty Two wrote:

I haven't advanced the position of "steady as she goes." There may be a need for formerly unpalatable governmental intervention; however, that need does not mean that all government interventions are effective and warrant acceptance. You need to accept the fact that there are some proposed solutions that are not appropriate.

OK, you can see at least the possible need for government intervention. There are more intransigent conservatives than yourself, who would resist most instances.

And it's certainly true that not all proposed actions, government or otherwise, will be effective. Or, to be more accurate, the set of proposed actions will have a range of effectiveness, and we need some clear, rational decision making to choose the most effective, and the ones that give the most bang for our bucks. The problem is that politicians, in general, as well as corporations, are not good at taking long term strategies for a global good - it is usually the case of short term tactics for either commercial gain or political advantage.

[BarnettNewman]

We live in a town run on diesel, mainly.

The diamond mines offered to bring in a nuclear power plant to meet their needs, and leave it with the Territories after they go, providing MUCH low-emissions power.

The locals, who genuinely are against ruining the earth, chose diesel, trucked up from the south. Who wants to deal with nuclear waste? It would be sitting there, on our yard, waiting for treatment.

The clouds of emissions just blow 'away', and are a lot easier to sell to the 'stakeholders' (in this case being indigenous governments and Canadian politicians)

Youncould run a small nuclear power station for 300 years and not fill a community swimming pool with the spent fuel.

[Sean Hayden]

Damn, we ought to be able to figure something out in 300 years.

[Cunt]

Forty Two wrote:

I haven't advanced the position of "steady as she goes." There may be a need for formerly unpalatable governmental intervention; however, that need does not mean that all government interventions are effective and warrant acceptance. You need to accept the fact that there are some proposed solutions that are not appropriate.

OK, you can see at least the possible need for government intervention. There are more intransigent conservatives than yourself, who would resist most instances.

And it's certainly true that not all proposed actions, government or otherwise, will be effective. Or, to be more accurate, the set of proposed actions will have a range of effectiveness, and we need some clear, rational decision making to choose the most effective, and the ones that give the most bang for our bucks. The problem is that politicians, in general, as well as corporations, are not good at taking long term strategies for a global good - it is usually the case of short term tactics for either commercial gain or political advantage.

Which is why I thought it was an interesting approach to give a river corporate 'personhood'. Corporations seem good at some kinds of long-range planning...

Government funding has a tendency to drip out in 1 - 3 year trickles. Like a wealthy elder granting us the urine of their generosity.

Youncould run a small nuclear power station for 300 years and not fill a community swimming pool with the spent fuel.

Try selling it then.

Good luck in remote northern communities.

[rainbow]

Did you accuse him?

You can ask the question 10 more times and you'll get the same answer.

Does your local Adult Literacy Centre not have a reading comprehension course?