Doug1029 Posted June 27, 2016 #51 Share Posted June 27, 2016 26 minutes ago, socrates.junior said: Don't worry, Thor, I believe (based on various posts) that even the most fervent environmentalists here have cars. Ironic, innit? It reminds me of when I rode my bike to work and ended up behind a large SUV. It had, ironically enough, several Sierra Club bumper stickers. Don't even get me started on anti-oil bumper stickers I've seen on reality-challenged vehicles at trailheads. Heh. Inconsistencies are always good for a chuckle. Economics is the driver. I drive a diesel pickup - not great for the environment. But: if I sell it, somebody else will drive it - no net gain. So I drive it until it falls apart because that is the cheapest solution to my economic situation. Conversion is more about economics than ethics. On a very cold day three years ago, I noticed a long line of vehicles at a MacDonald's drive-through - all with their engines running. Each of those drivers was stating his opinion that fuel prices weren't high enough yet. Doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorvir Posted June 27, 2016 #52 Share Posted June 27, 2016 36 minutes ago, socrates.junior said: Don't worry, Thor, I believe (based on various posts) that even the most fervent environmentalists here have cars. Ironic, innit? It reminds me of when I rode my bike to work and ended up behind a large SUV. It had, ironically enough, several Sierra Club bumper stickers. Don't even get me started on anti-oil bumper stickers I've seen on reality-challenged vehicles at trailheads. Heh. Inconsistencies are always good for a chuckle. Try calculating much fossil fuel is used for Al Gore to fly his jet here and there to promote his hoax, and how much "damage" it does to the environment. It's all about money for these types. If they can get paid and paid substantially for it, they'll drag the entire world into the stone age again....aside from themselves, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug1029 Posted June 27, 2016 #53 Share Posted June 27, 2016 41 minutes ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said: Try calculating much fossil fuel is used for Al Gore to fly his jet here and there to promote his hoax, and how much "damage" it does to the environment. It's all about money for these types. If they can get paid and paid substantially for it, they'll drag the entire world into the stone age again....aside from themselves, of course. While I agree that Gore is being hypocritical, he did bring the problem to people's attention in a way that us scientists have never been able to manage. Unfortunately, he also politicized it and you are a fine example of his negative influence. What we all need to do is look at the actual situation, not one we or our political fellow-travelers have made up, but one supported by climate science. Then look at the economics of conversion vs. the economics of not converting. Having done that, I think you'll see where the problems are. Doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Socks Junior Posted June 28, 2016 #54 Share Posted June 28, 2016 On 6/27/2016 at 11:09 AM, Doug1o29 said: Economics is the driver. I drive a diesel pickup - not great for the environment. But: if I sell it, somebody else will drive it - no net gain. So I drive it until it falls apart because that is the cheapest solution to my economic situation. Conversion is more about economics than ethics. On a very cold day three years ago, I noticed a long line of vehicles at a MacDonald's drive-through - all with their engines running. Each of those drivers was stating his opinion that fuel prices weren't high enough yet. Doug The net gain is immaterial if one is interested in the internal consistency of one's own lifestyle. Practice what you preach and what have you. Converting people who don't have a position/don't care is best done through economics, I completely agree. However, if people are on one hand preaching the evils of fossil fuels but also driving cars that run on fossil fuels the message becomes murky at best, hypocritical at worst. That's exactly why Al Gore completely poisoned the well for a lot of people (this thread is a great example of how inextricable he is from the debate at this point). Getting lectured by a jet-setting multi-millionaire with a carbon footprint of hundreds of ordinary people is laughable. Similar to being lectured by Leonardo "I don't understand what chinooks are" DiCaprio. The main problem is that the message is inextricable from politics at this point, which is unfortunate. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug1029 Posted June 28, 2016 #55 Share Posted June 28, 2016 4 minutes ago, socrates.junior said: The net gain is immaterial if one is interested in the internal consistency of one's own lifestyle. Practice what you preach and what have you. Converting people who don't have a position/don't care is best done through economics, I completely agree. However, if people are on one hand preaching the evils of fossil fuels but also driving cars that run on fossil fuels the message becomes murky at best, hypocritical at worst. That's exactly why Al Gore completely poisoned the well for a lot of people (this thread is a great example of how inextricable he is from the debate at this point). Getting lectured by a jet-setting multi-millionaire with a carbon footprint of hundreds of ordinary people is laughable. Similar to being lectured by Leonardo "I don't understand what chinooks are" DiCaprio. The main problem is that the message is inextricable from politics at this point, which is unfortunate. One needs to include the carbon used in production of a new vehicle and disposal of the old one in his calculations. The smallest carbon footprint is usually produced by using up what you have, rather than buying new stuff. For the rest, as you say: "Converting people who don't have a position/don't care is best done through economics, I completely agree. However, if people are on one hand preaching the evils of fossil fuels but also driving cars that run on fossil fuels the message becomes murky at best, hypocritical at worst. That's exactly why Al Gore completely poisoned the well for a lot of people (this thread is a great example of how inextricable he is from the debate at this point). Getting lectured by a jet-setting multi-millionaire with a carbon footprint of hundreds of ordinary people is laughable." Doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug1029 Posted June 29, 2016 #56 Share Posted June 29, 2016 (edited) 17 hours ago, socrates.junior said: The net gain is immaterial if one is interested in the internal consistency of one's own lifestyle. Practice what you preach and what have you. Converting people who don't have a position/don't care is best done through economics, I completely agree. However, if people are on one hand preaching the evils of fossil fuels but also driving cars that run on fossil fuels the message becomes murky at best, hypocritical at worst. That's exactly why Al Gore completely poisoned the well for a lot of people (this thread is a great example of how inextricable he is from the debate at this point). Getting lectured by a jet-setting multi-millionaire with a carbon footprint of hundreds of ordinary people is laughable. Similar to being lectured by Leonardo "I don't understand what chinooks are" DiCaprio. The main problem is that the message is inextricable from politics at this point, which is unfortunate. Ideological purity isn't needed - or practical in most cases. It also freezes thinking, discouraging innovation. And that is death to scientific enquiry. Conversion will take decades at least, generations probably and possibly a century or more. Carbon has a residence time in the atmosphere of at least 300 years, maybe as long as a thousand. What one person does won't have much effect. It's what millions do that will count. Solutions to environmental problems must take people into account. A starving man will cook the last spotted owl, or cut the last redwood to feed his family. "Solutions" that don't serve people will not be adopted. That's what scares business - they see people-oriented solutions as (Horrors!) SOCIALISM!!! They have no good reason to be anti-socialist and they benefit from it, but it still scares them. I support conservation, especially when it conserves money as well as resources. Part of that conservation includes not replacing old equipment too soon. An old truck is best kept running until it is no longer feasible to repair it. Same with an old power plant. A passive solar window heater is a good investment, but not if you have to cut a hole in the wall to use it. A little common sense in the application is warranted. Conversion doesn't have to be traumatic. It is usually the cheapest solution to a problem. Wait until what you've got wears out, then replace it with something more environmentally friendly. I ran an old furnace/air conditioner for thirteen years before I could raise the money to replace it. During that time I could have saved the cost of a new one twice over. And that's the problem: you have to have the money to invest in the new system before you can replace the old one. And the conversion process will create new millionaires: new inventions and new equipment will be needed. Somebody has to build and market that equipment and those who do will make money. And it will provide jobs: the P&E Clean Line employees hundreds of people to build its new power lines and will require crews to operate it. We need to replace the US power grid and that will provide hundreds, even thousands, of new jobs. And we could follow the P&E model and do it without using tax money. I see a bright future ahead. Doug P.S.: Oil is used not just as fuel, but in thousands of everyday products, like plastics. Diesel is a by-product of this. As it stands, we have a market for diesel, but what happens when we convert to some other power system? That's an awful lot of diesel to pump back into the ground. What do we do with it? Doug Edited June 29, 2016 by Doug1029 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug1029 Posted June 29, 2016 #57 Share Posted June 29, 2016 16 hours ago, socrates.junior said: Similar to being lectured by Leonardo "I don't understand what chinooks are" DiCaprio. Speaking of Chinooks: a Chinook in Alberta frequently produces a blue norther in Texas. No wonder people are confused. A cold air mass in Alberta is displaced southward by a warm air mass from the Pacific. The warm air mass produces warm winds called "Chinooks" and warms up Alberta, producing spring-like weather. Meanwhile, the cold air mass moves south, bringing sub-zero temps to northern Texas, often accompanied by clear blue skies, hence the name - blue norther. Doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Unicorn Posted June 29, 2016 #58 Share Posted June 29, 2016 1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said: Ideological purity isn't needed - or practical in most cases. It also freezes thinking, discouraging innovation. And that is death to scientific enquiry. Conversion will take decades at least, generations probably and possibly a century or more. Carbon has a residence time in the atmosphere of at least 300 years, maybe as long as a thousand. What one person does won't have much effect. It's what millions do that will count. Solutions to environmental problems must take people into account. A starving man will cook the last spotted owl, or cut the last redwood to feed his family. "Solutions" that don't serve people will not be adopted. That's what scares business - they see people-oriented solutions as (Horrors!) SOCIALISM!!! They have no good reason to be anti-socialist and they benefit from it, but it still scares them. I support conservation, especially when it conserves money as well as resources. Part of that conservation includes not replacing old equipment too soon. An old truck is best kept running until it is no longer feasible to repair it. Same with an old power plant. A passive solar window heater is a good investment, but not if you have to cut a hole in the wall to use it. A little common sense in the application is warranted. Conversion doesn't have to be traumatic. It is usually the cheapest solution to a problem. Wait until what you've got wears out, then replace it with something more environmentally friendly. I ran an old furnace/air conditioner for thirteen years before I could raise the money to replace it. During that time I could have saved the cost of a new one twice over. And that's the problem: you have to have the money to invest in the new system before you can replace the old one. And the conversion process will create new millionaires: new inventions and new equipment will be needed. Somebody has to build and market that equipment and those who do will make money. And it will provide jobs: the P&E Clean Line employees hundreds of people to build its new power lines and will require crews to operate it. We need to replace the US power grid and that will provide hundreds, even thousands, of new jobs. And we could follow the P&E model and do it without using tax money. I see a bright future ahead. Doug P.S.: Oil is used not just as fuel, but in thousands of everyday products, like plastics. Diesel is a by-product of this. As it stands, we have a market for diesel, but what happens when we convert to some other power system? That's an awful lot of diesel to pump back into the ground. What do we do with it? Doug Any conversions take time, industrial age to tech, light bulbs changing to LED etc. Roof goes bad their are incentives to converting to new solar solutions, it takes time as you said. We just have to set the right goal and a time frame for better conversions to better methods. Yes you are dead on, the current business people yell communism or socialism because it might hurt bottom line but if they change with the course of the future goals they have many other ways to make more money with new innovations to convert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now