And that still won't lead to zero emissions by 2100 unless all houses are replaced by new ones before then. And, according to the UN, there's no escape from the climate change consequences without getting to zero emissions.
So it's a huge amount of effort, difficulty, and sacrifice (that's wildly unrealistic to expect from an actual human population) only to fail to reach zero emissions.
So your plan for the Milwaukee resident is for him to tear down his existing house and build a brand new one. (Nevermind the carbon footprint from that.) He can't choose a design he likes because everything must be designed for green concerns. And even after he does this, he will still need to use some sort of energy to heat his house in the winter, even if it's only 20% as much. Where will he get that energy? Winter is 6 months of mostly clouds and darkness with occasional weak sunlight in Milwaukee.
Environmentalists just want them to run their fridge, AC and vehicle on solar power instead of fossil fuels.
That might work for some relatively wealthy home owners in California.
Where does an apartment dweller put his solar panels? Do Seattle residents only get refrigeration when it's sunny out? How do you suggest Milwaukee residents use solar power to heat their homes in the winter?
1. Republican power is increasing in Washington. If you want a powerful government friend to help you, you make friends with people who whose power is increasing.
2. People don't love Hillary Clinton. Support for Hillary Clinton rests mostly on hatred for her opponents. But her opponent hasn't been chosen yet. It might be Rand Paul. So it's hard to get your hate on enough to write the big check.
Lower isn't zero. The whole premise is that emissions have to go to zero to avoid climate change consequences. So what is the point of a scheme that doesn't go to zero and thus doesn't avoid the climate change consequences?
What if they want the next generation to have the same living standard as themselves? The alternative seems to be "we should deprive ourselves and live an artificially poor life so our children can grow up to deprive themselves even more".
Why wouldn't we try to make things better instead? If AGW is a problem caused by modern civilization, instead of giving up on modern civilization, we should use modern civilization's capabilities to deal with it.
That is what will happen anyway. There no way people will give up their refrigerator, or their AC, or their vehicle, or their vacations. And there's no way to get developing nations to agree to never buy a refrigerator or an air conditioner. Let's all stop pretending.
Clean energy is cheaper when it's cheaper and more expensive when it's more expensive. No one has to force poor people to choose environmentally righteous choices when they're also cheaper. But poor people can't afford environmental righteousness all the other times, when it's more expensive.
The number one air pollution problem in developing countries is indoor air pollution from burning dung and other biomass in homes, something that primarily affects women and children. Switching to electricity generated outside the home using natural gas or even coal dramatically improves the lives of the world’s poor.
and
Lower-income households spend almost a quarter of their income on energy. Cutting out fossil fuels would cause energy prices to soar, punishing the poor the most.
Environmental righteousness makes rich people feel good about themselves. But it hurts the world's poor.
Zero emissions isn't going to happen. It's time for the alarmist side to stop pretending there are any policy choices on the table to prevent the warming they are predicting. Change the conversation from "it's real and we're all doomed unless we change energy policy" to "it's real and here are the most cost-effective ways to make sure we're not all doomed".
Stop trying to scare everyone with the apocalypse talk and spend the next hundred years finding solutions to problems. We're not going to undo modern civilization. Let's find a way to live with it and make the best of things.
Explanations more likely than insanity: - she is non-technical and may be mistaken - she's lying to sell books - she's telling the truth - she said something different and was misquoted or edited in some misleading way, possibly by accident
Also, roads are paid for by fuel taxes. Air travel infrastructure is paid for by ticket taxes. Local streets and local services are paid for by local and state taxes -- usually sales taxes. Only a very tiny percentage of Federal income taxes go for infrastructure.
There are a few high-regulation governments that work OK -- in small European countries with relatively homogeneous populations, industrious cultures, and a very long tradition of "professional" government. That's about it though. It only works when everything is perfect. Add or take away anything and it fails -- you get governments that botch their main mission while abusing the public.
Cynicism is not insightful, even when is it arguably correct.
You can join "the big two", BTW. It's easy. Unless you are a constantly disruptive crank, they are happy for your participation at meetings. They can be reformed -- or at least strongly influenced -- from the inside.
Slashdot Mirror
And that still won't lead to zero emissions by 2100 unless all houses are replaced by new ones before then. And, according to the UN, there's no escape from the climate change consequences without getting to zero emissions.
So it's a huge amount of effort, difficulty, and sacrifice (that's wildly unrealistic to expect from an actual human population) only to fail to reach zero emissions.
When can we stop pretending?
So your plan for the Milwaukee resident is for him to tear down his existing house and build a brand new one. (Nevermind the carbon footprint from that.) He can't choose a design he likes because everything must be designed for green concerns. And even after he does this, he will still need to use some sort of energy to heat his house in the winter, even if it's only 20% as much. Where will he get that energy? Winter is 6 months of mostly clouds and darkness with occasional weak sunlight in Milwaukee.
Environmentalists just want them to run their fridge, AC and vehicle on solar power instead of fossil fuels.
That might work for some relatively wealthy home owners in California.
Where does an apartment dweller put his solar panels? Do Seattle residents only get refrigeration when it's sunny out? How do you suggest Milwaukee residents use solar power to heat their homes in the winter?
1. Republican power is increasing in Washington. If you want a powerful government friend to help you, you make friends with people who whose power is increasing.
2. People don't love Hillary Clinton. Support for Hillary Clinton rests mostly on hatred for her opponents. But her opponent hasn't been chosen yet. It might be Rand Paul. So it's hard to get your hate on enough to write the big check.
Lower isn't zero. The whole premise is that emissions have to go to zero to avoid climate change consequences. So what is the point of a scheme that doesn't go to zero and thus doesn't avoid the climate change consequences?
What if they want the next generation to have the same living standard as themselves? The alternative seems to be "we should deprive ourselves and live an artificially poor life so our children can grow up to deprive themselves even more".
Why wouldn't we try to make things better instead? If AGW is a problem caused by modern civilization, instead of giving up on modern civilization, we should use modern civilization's capabilities to deal with it.
That is what will happen anyway. There no way people will give up their refrigerator, or their AC, or their vehicle, or their vacations. And there's no way to get developing nations to agree to never buy a refrigerator or an air conditioner. Let's all stop pretending.
Clean energy is cheaper when it's cheaper and more expensive when it's more expensive. No one has to force poor people to choose environmentally righteous choices when they're also cheaper. But poor people can't afford environmental righteousness all the other times, when it's more expensive.
None of that can achieve zero emissions. Nor does it solve any problems caused by climate change.
Which is what?
How does that policy work? Who gets to hand out exemptions? On what basis? By what authority?
Zero emissions won't happen. Regardless of anything. It's not about your us vs. them nonsense.
If they're not allowed to use it because of "pollution", how does that help them?
Plus, first world countries also have poor people.
No matter how hard you bang the drums of class warfare, we're still not going to get to zero emissions by 2100.
Here's the problem with that:
and
Environmental righteousness makes rich people feel good about themselves. But it hurts the world's poor.
Zero emissions isn't going to happen. It's time for the alarmist side to stop pretending there are any policy choices on the table to prevent the warming they are predicting. Change the conversation from "it's real and we're all doomed unless we change energy policy" to "it's real and here are the most cost-effective ways to make sure we're not all doomed".
Stop trying to scare everyone with the apocalypse talk and spend the next hundred years finding solutions to problems. We're not going to undo modern civilization. Let's find a way to live with it and make the best of things.
You really think she's clinically insane?
Explanations more likely than insanity:
- she is non-technical and may be mistaken
- she's lying to sell books
- she's telling the truth
- she said something different and was misquoted or edited in some misleading way, possibly by accident
Also, roads are paid for by fuel taxes. Air travel infrastructure is paid for by ticket taxes. Local streets and local services are paid for by local and state taxes -- usually sales taxes. Only a very tiny percentage of Federal income taxes go for infrastructure.
There are a few high-regulation governments that work OK -- in small European countries with relatively homogeneous populations, industrious cultures, and a very long tradition of "professional" government. That's about it though. It only works when everything is perfect. Add or take away anything and it fails -- you get governments that botch their main mission while abusing the public.
It's a story about people. It's not about you. You shouldn't "care". But it's an interesting, well-written story anyway.
Cynicism is not insightful, even when is it arguably correct.
You can join "the big two", BTW. It's easy. Unless you are a constantly disruptive crank, they are happy for your participation at meetings. They can be reformed -- or at least strongly influenced -- from the inside.
Prosecuting tax cheats is difficult and costs money. Stealing from people is easy and makes money.
Also in Thailand and Nigeria. All USA's fault somehow. Or maybe Israel's. It depends on which groupthink is currently active.
Obviously he's building an army of robot football hooligans.
Police are searching for them under an old Ethernet bridge.
But they found no such correlation for juices or diet sodas.