Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Right wing ideas for saving the environment


travelnjones

Recommended Posts

And in a serendipitous piece of timing, people might like to read this article from the Australian ABC: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-22/a-republican-case-for-climate-action-in-the-trump-era/8275120   (with my bolding)

Quote

Mr Inglis is certain conservatives can take the lead on addressing climate change, and that the answer is policies based around ideas of free enterprise, limited government and accountability.

He has established a group, RepublicEn.org, which proposes environmental tax reform in the US. Specifically, the group wants to eliminate all subsidies for all fuels and "make all fuels fully accountable for all of the costs they bring upon society."

This would mean taking into account the health costs and any damage to the environment.

"So if you made it so the incumbent fuels could no longer subsidise their soot by spreading it all across society and made them accountable for that, well yes the price of their electricity would go up, but not artificially, it would go up to its actual cost," he said. "So if you put all of the costs in on all of the fuels … then consumers, in the liberty of enlightened self-interest, would seek cleaner, better fuels. Then in the free enterprise system, on a level playing field, innovation will happen."

Edited by Peter B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
On 20/02/2017 at 11:14 PM, spartan max2 said:

I like peters idea of making a agency that researches green technology and relases the tech knowedge free to industry.

In the end what has to happen is for it to be more affordable to use alternative then coal.

You could give tax breaks to states that use a certain amount of alternative.

An issue that most people don't think about though is that the coal industry brings a lot of jobs that alternative probably won't 

Do you mind me asking what jobs these would be? My understanding is that mining technology has considerably reduced the number of people needed to work in coal mines.

In any case, this article suggests that there are more jobs in solar energy projects than in coal mining: https://www.academia.edu/26372861/Retraining_Investment_for_U.S._Transition_from_Coal_to_Solar_Photovoltaic_Employment#_blank

In fact, the article claims that growth in the solar industry could "...absorb the layoffs in the coal industry in the next 15 years."

Edited by Peter B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Peter B said:

Do you mind me asking what jobs these would be? My understanding is that mining technology has considerably reduced the number of people needed to work in coal mines.

In any case, this article suggests that there are more jobs in solar energy projects than in coal mining: https://www.academia.edu/26372861/Retraining_Investment_for_U.S._Transition_from_Coal_to_Solar_Photovoltaic_Employment#_blank

In fact, the article claims that growth in the solar industry could "...absorb the layoffs in the coal industry in the next 15 years."

I could be wrong.

It's mostly just my own assumption based on nonothing lol.

My thinking is it takes people to mine coal out of the ground but once the panel is up you don't need anyone to mine the sunlight. 

And then of course for both groups people will have to operate the power companies 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-22/pumped-hydro-power-in-spencer-gulf-energy-australia/8292596

For those who say that renewables can’t provide baseload power, well, in addition to home battery systems, here’s another way of storing excess electricity production for use when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing.

And in principle I can't see why it shouldn't be a money-spinner. In an open market, where there's an excess of power production the wholesale price of electricity goes down, which makes it cheap for the operator to buy electricity to pump water into the upper reservoir. Then, when it's still and/or dark, and renewable production goes down, the operator can release water from the upper reservoir to drive the turbines to produce electricity, at a time when the wholesale price will be going up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23/02/2017 at 11:04 AM, Peter B said:

And private companies are hardly paragons of civic virtue either.

But the fact remains that private companies have to be accountable to the whole population. As I said in my previous post, right-wingers tend to be strong promoters of individual rights and responsibilities. But the exercise of those rights is only to the extent that they don’t infringe the rights of others. Well, altering the atmosphere affects everyone on the planet. Therefore doing something that contributes to warming infringes everyone’s rights. And the best way for companies to be held accountable by the people is through the people’s representative, which is the governments of countries around the world.

If you think that a carbon tax would be an expensive government boondoggle, fine. Could you suggest an alternative that would result in companies which currently produce carbon dioxide reducing their carbon dioxide production to zero? After all, we can’t rely on the honesty of companies if they just say they’ve reduced their emissions. As Ronald Reagan said, “Trust, but verify.”

As a scientist with thirty years experience I still need to be convinced that global warming is more likely than global cooling, but let's not get into this debate. Let's assume global warming is real, and that it's man-made, then what can be done to counter it.

You know my views on the big government/globalist carbon credits solution. It's designed to centralise power and to enrich the insiders, but just because I am stridently opposed to corrupt big government doesn't mean I wave the flag for extreme laissez faire capitalism either. I'm afraid I cannot see much light at the end of this tunnel.

First we need an agreed definition as to what is causing global warming before rushing into a course of action to alleviate it. World population explosion together with high per capita consumption in many countries, especially in the USA and Western Europe, are the obvious villains, so reducing these factors is where the solution most likely lies, but who is going to vote for depopulation and poverty? I suggest few are willing or brave enough to go here, and even if they were "their" solution would be for every one but themselves to make sacrifices. Hence non-solutions promoted by those in power like carbon tax credits. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎2‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 1:24 PM, Professor Buzzkill said:

Why can't we encourage the use of wood as a way of slowing the rate of carbon in the atmosphere?  We can use trees as "carbon sinks" and plant and cut down as many trees as possible to lock carbon in the wood being used. As long as the wood was being used in long term buildings or furniture, it would be very useful for both industry and climate 

This strategy is being used and promoted.  But before we get too excited about it, let's ask how much wood is being converted to long-term storage (Wood is 40% carbon.) and how much we would need to store.  I suspect wood products are a drop in the bucket.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎2‎/‎16‎/‎2017 at 11:47 AM, john444 said:

A second search revealed that 150,000 people die per day. If you factor this in we still need 5 or so rocket launches per minute to keep population numbers from rising.

They figured out what causes that.  There's a pill for it.

But seriously, in countries where women are educated and have equal rights, there are lower birth rates.

How about this:  for each US soldier killed in Iraq, Yemen, etc., we bring a girl from that country to the US for an education - clear through college if that's what they want to do.  Might have to send the military after De Vos and Trmp, though.  But, that's one thing they're good at.

About war as a means of population control:  too inefficient.  War destroys more resources than it frees up.  Disease is a much better way of killing off people.

Doug

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, john444 said:

As a scientist with thirty years experience I still need to be convinced that global warming is more likely than global cooling, but let's not get into this debate. Let's assume global warming is real, and that it's man-made, then what can be done to counter it.

You know my views on the big government/globalist carbon credits solution. It's designed to centralise power and to enrich the insiders, but just because I am stridently opposed to corrupt big government doesn't mean I wave the flag for extreme laissez faire capitalism either. I'm afraid I cannot see much light at the end of this tunnel.

First we need an agreed definition as to what is causing global warming before rushing into a course of action to alleviate it. World population explosion together with high per capita consumption in many countries, especially in the USA and Western Europe, are the obvious villains, so reducing these factors is where the solution most likely lies, but who is going to vote for depopulation and poverty? I suggest few are willing or brave enough to go here, and even if they were "their" solution would be for every one but themselves to make sacrifices. Hence non-solutions promoted by those in power like carbon tax credits. 

What do you specialize in?

Actually, warming is quite easy to show and can be done with instrumental records.  In Oklahoma we have instrumental records going back at least to July 1, 1824 at Fort Towson on the Red River.  You've heard of Fort Towson - that's where Stand Waite, the last Confederate General, surrendered to the Union.  That's Fort Towson's claim to fame, other than being the oldest weather station in Oklahoma.  Those are Medical Corps records.  I've heard there are also Signal Corps records and about a dozen private accounts.  At any rate, the records reach into the Little Ice Age.  Showing that it has warmed up since then (The coldest year was 1841.), is a piece of cake.  There's a paper by Burnette that tells how to do it.  I'm in the lab, but I'll try to give you the exact reference when I get back to my office.

I quite agree with your views on carbon credits.  They don't work.  All they do is move pollution around; they don't reduce it.  It's the industry fall-back position, in case they lose the "global warming doesn't exist" battle.  "Mitigation" doesn't work either because a huge amount of money has to be spent on land acquisition before anything can be done to mitigate pollution.  In the meantime, pollution increases.  BUT:  fee-and-dividend might work.  Basically, a fee based on carbon content is assessed at the well head, mine mouth or port-of-entry.  All revenues are distributed to citizens on a per capita basis to spend as they see fit.  Because the fee makes carbon-containing products cost more, purchasers would tend to select against them.  This all depends on economic theory actually working.

Isotope studies pretty clearly track increased atmospheric carbon back to fossil carbon, specifically, coal.  Now, how did that carbon get from the coal to the air?  Can you think of a way?  Oil has not been directly implicated, but being made of carbon and burned in great quantities, the circumstantial evidence is damning.

Depopulation of the voluntary sort would be a good idea.  As I said above, the best way seems to be to educate women and bring them into the economic mainstream.  They will do the rest.  Kids are a lot of work and lots of people would decide not to have them if they had a choice.

Poverty?  Who said anything about poverty?  The idea is to convert industry to clean energy, not put it out of business.  Wind is now cheaper than all other forms of electricity except geothermal and there are limited opportunities for geothermal.  If the utilities could keep half the savings realized by wind conversion...  The Plains and Eastern Clean Line runs eight miles west of my house.  It is being built because there is money to be made in that price difference.  Billions.  If you are from the southeast, by this time next year, you will be running that computer on Oklahoma wind.  The contracts for the transformers have already been let to General Electric.  Substantial portions of the wires are already in place.  Conversion is in progress.

AND:  conservation saves money by reducing the amount of energy being used.  Such simple devices as insulating strips, insulating old buildings, replacing old window frames, etc. will save energy and money.

 

You are doing what all the deniers do:  they assume that poorly-developed technologies will never get any better.  Look at solar's record.  During the last year it has overtaken coal in price per kwh.  And it will get better.  When it starts competing with gas, it will start being adopted.  And Tesla is building a battery plant in Nevada.  Apparently they think that good electric cars are about to come on line.  We don't need govt help to bring these things into being.  But what we do need is for government and obstructionists to get out of the way.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

You are doing what all the deniers do:  they assume that poorly-developed technologies will never get any better. 

Now. now Doug. You got a bit carried away at the end there, don't you think. I said in my post that, " I still need to be convinced that global warming is more likely than global cooling..." and you referred to me as being a denier? Employing such a perjorative term suggests to me that you should keep better intellectual company, and not parrot the insults used by devout warmists against anyone who has a mind of their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-02-08 at 3:46 PM, Thorvir said:

News flash, it's the Earth, climate changes, it has and it always will.

So you are basically ignoring every scientific research and conclusions contradicting your opinion?

Edited by TruthSeeker_
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, john444 said:

Now. now Doug. You got a bit carried away at the end there, don't you think. I said in my post that, " I still need to be convinced that global warming is more likely than global cooling..." and you referred to me as being a denier? Employing such a perjorative term suggests to me that you should keep better intellectual company, and not parrot the insults used by devout warmists against anyone who has a mind of their own.

I am not calling you a denier.  But it does seem to me that you have made this particular mistake in common with deniers.

That reference:  Burnette, D. J., D. W. Stahle and C. J. Mock.  2010.  Daily-Mean Temperature Reconstructed for Kansas from Early Instrumental and Modern Observations.  American Meteorological Society.  http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/2009JCL2445.1

Doug

Edited by Doug1029
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.