The Green New Deal

[GlennB]

Oh look!

Another endless, page-gobbling squabble between Ziggurat and Belz...

Ah, what fun we have ! Aintcha glad you logged in?

 

[Ziggurat]

I've tried it before. Didn't work. So I gave up.

I'll take that as you NOT having any means to support your claim. Thanks for playing.

I did give some of my reasoning, and you simply ignored it. Why shouldn't I give up?

And you've never tried not being snarky or practicing the principle of charity.

 

[Ziggurat]

Oh look!

Another endless, page-gobbling squabble between Ziggurat and Belz...

Ah, what fun we have ! Aintcha glad you logged in?

Even I'm bored with it. I think I'll ignore this thread now.

 

[Belz...]

Oh look!

Another endless, page-gobbling squabble between Ziggurat and Belz...

Ah, what fun we have ! Aintcha glad you logged in?

Hey you can't say that I didn't at least try to get him to expand on his claims. Then it became about:

Ok that's the claim. Go on. Support it.

Why would I support a claim I haven't made?

I'm asking you to explain why you are making the claims you are making. That seems to annoy you to no end.

Can you support it or not? You can ask the Green-Dealers to support their own claims if you want. I want to know why you claim what you claimed. It's really simple. Stop whining about the other kid getting a slightly larger lollipop and make your case.

Admittedly the lollipop reference was a slight jab, but then:

Because of course you won't, because your demands for evidence are never actually about standards or the truth.

And there we went.

Maybe we should get married already.

 

[Belz...]

I did give some of my reasoning, and you simply ignored it.

I didn't ask you for reasoning, which is code for rephrasing your claim. I asked you to _support_ your claim, which you have not done.

I think I'll ignore this thread now.

And yet I know the next time I'll try really hard to get you to support another claim, and you'll dodge that as well.

 

[Brainster]

Can you support it or not? You can ask the Green-Dealers to support their own claims if you want. I want to know why you claim what you claimed. It's really simple. Stop whining about the other kid getting a slightly larger lollipop and make your case.

The point about ruining the economy is pretty obvious. Oh, the greenies like to pretend that we're going to march forward into a glorious, environmentally-friendly future together with a booming economy and jobs for all. It's pretty obvious that a serious carbon tax (which is going to be required, never mind that the GND holds off on recommending it for now) is going to have lots of negative effects on the economy. Goods will cost more to transport, which will mean increased prices on the store shelves. At the same time, people will have less money to spend due to the increased gas and other energy prices. Sounds like the mid-late 1970s all over again.

 

[Belz...]

The point about ruining the economy is pretty obvious. Oh, the greenies like to pretend that we're going to march forward into a glorious, environmentally-friendly future together with a booming economy and jobs for all. It's pretty obvious that a serious carbon tax (which is going to be required, never mind that the GND holds off on recommending it for now) is going to have lots of negative effects on the economy. Goods will cost more to transport, which will mean increased prices on the store shelves. At the same time, people will have less money to spend due to the increased gas and other energy prices. Sounds like the mid-late 1970s all over again.

That still doesn't ruin the economy and prevent us from dealing with climate change. I mean, you say it will, but will it?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The sentiment of some seems to be: why even try to stem the bleeding unless we can full restore the limb?
I agree that, given current technology, we won't get back to "normal" CO2 levels, even if we try. We will have to adapt.
But the question remains: how much?
If we can slow temperature increase, that buys time and saves money: it's mostly a question of cost whether we have to resettle the population of half of Florida within 40 years or 100 years.

 

[smartcooky]

I've already addressed this. The statu quo will cause a catastrophic increase in temperatures. How is that better?

He's probably happy to sacrifice his children's future on the alter of his own financial comfort?

We have a term for this..... "I'm alright Jack!"

 

[smartcooky]

The Green New Deal won't stop the temperature increase, but will cripple our ability to adapt to it.

If climate change was taking place over a period of a few hundred million years (as it has previously), life might be able to adapt biologically through evolutionary change (as it has previously), but at the current rate of change, the temperature on Earth will be unlivable in a matter of a few decades, too fast for life to adapt.

There is absolutely zero chance we can adapt to it. We are at the beginning of the Earth's sixth mass extinction - we are causing it, and we are the only living creatures on the earth with the ability to prevent it. If we fail to do so, we WILL become victims of it.

 

[Belz...]

If climate change was taking place over a period of a few hundred million years (as it has previously), life might be able to adapt biologically through evolutionary change (as it has previously), but at the current rate of change, the temperature on Earth will be unlivable in a matter of a few decades, too fast for life to adapt.

There is absolutely zero chance we can adapt to it. We are at the beginning of the Earth's sixth mass extinction - we are causing it, and we are the only living creatures on the earth with the ability to prevent it. If we fail to do so, we WILL become victims of it.

We can survive a 5 degree increase, but at a tremendous cost. And by tremendous, I mean that our numbers may be reduced by 90+%. I don't find that this "statu quo" is an acceptable solution.

 

[smartcooky]

We can survive a 5 degree increase, but at a tremendous cost. And by tremendous, I mean that our numbers may be reduced by 90+%. I don't find that this "statu quo" is an acceptable solution.

... and the people who are probably best positioned to survive such a temperature rise are those nomads and tribal groups living in sub-Saharan Africa.... how ironic would that be?

 

[Belz...]

... and the people who are probably best positioned to survive such a temperature rise are those nomads and tribal groups living in sub-Saharan Africa.... how ironic would that be?

I think North America will be one of the safest places, if compared to Africa and Asia, for instance. Not sure how Europe, Oz and South America will fare.

 

[shuttlt]

I am suggesting you keep the existing power grid in each country and the grid connections between each country.. First you replace all the say 1200MW coal-fired power plants with similar sized solar, wind or battery plants. So the answer is 1200MW battery plants.

At that stage you have all the CFPP replaced and well on your way to getting transpoertation away from oil by using electric vehicles.

The next stage is to reduce (hopefully to zero) the use of gas in electric power generation. As well as wind/solar/battery power you have nuclear, hydro and geothermal power plants in the power production mix..

I don't know whether waste to energy (WTE) power plants with flue gas cleaning would also be part of the solution.

I'm not sure how you replace a 1200MW coal power station with a similar sized solar one. The solar one will only produce it's peak output in the middle of the day and most of the time it will produce nothing. How do we compare them? Is that at peak? This isn't my area, so it may well be just my ignorance speaking here.

Looking at this: https://www.spiritenergy.co.uk/lease-finance-0 it seems like a 1MWh system might cost $550,000. Tesla's Powerwall 2 can do 13.5kWh for $5,500.

Buffering this amount of electricity to make it anything like reliable and continuous is going to get expensive fast if we use batteries.

 

[kellyb]

Because of course you won't, because your demands for evidence are never actually about standards or the truth.



The Green New Deal cannot achieve its objective, because it's not possible to without total economic collapse, and we'll change course when the economic hit becomes big enough (which it will well before our emissions hit zero). So we will continue to emit. And temperatures will continue to rise.

Consider the Paris accord. Most countries won't hit their targets, but even if they did, that wouldn't stop global warming, only slow it down a little.

Climate change is going to happen. So how do you adapt to climate change? You change what you do. And that... requires money. A struggling economy has a harder time adapting than a vibrant economy.

The highlighted is absolutely false. Also "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

Re: your claim that the GND won't even help at all:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018...nt-a-green-new-deal-to-tackle-climate-change/

The figure below, produced by Carbon Brief, shows the baseline US greenhouse gas emissions in the absence of any new policies in dark blue – based on estimates published by the Rhodium Group. A pathway consistent with limiting temperatures to below 1.5C without a massive-scale deployment of negative emissions is shown in light blue – and involves a 60% decline in emissions by 2030, reflecting the global trajectory to 1.5C. Finally, a scenario with 100% clean electricity generation by 2030 is shown in yellow – and assumes that emissions in other sectors remain flat.

US greenhouse gas emissions – in million tonnes CO2-equivalent (MtCO2eq) for a baseline no-additional-policy scenario (dark blue), a100% clean electricity by 2030 scenario (yellow), and a 1.5C-consistent pathway with a 60% decline in emissions by 2030 (light blue). Chart by Carbon Brief using Highcharts.

The 100% clean electricity by 2030 goal in the new green deal would only get the US about halfway to being on a below-1.5C pathway, even if the US only took on a global-average level of ambition. Large reductions would have to come from other sectors of the economy, specifically transportation and residential, commercial, and industrial energy use.

The proposed green new deal reflects a new focus on climate change by Democrats, advancing for the first time a set of measures that reflect the scale and speed of a mitigation response that would be consistent with a pathway limiting warming to below 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.

It's a beginning towards mitigating the harm.

One more thing:

Climate change is going to happen. So how do you adapt to climate change?

When did the conservative argument switch from "Climate change isn't real" to "Hahaha, suckers! It's real, allright, but it's way too late to do anything about it now, losers!"?

 

[a_unique_person]

Sham deal, sham supporters

Real problem that is not going to be addressed.

 

[a_unique_person]

The point about ruining the economy is pretty obvious. Oh, the greenies like to pretend that we're going to march forward into a glorious, environmentally-friendly future together with a booming economy and jobs for all. It's pretty obvious that a serious carbon tax (which is going to be required, never mind that the GND holds off on recommending it for now) is going to have lots of negative effects on the economy. Goods will cost more to transport, which will mean increased prices on the store shelves. At the same time, people will have less money to spend due to the increased gas and other energy prices. Sounds like the mid-late 1970s all over again.

That's like, your opinion.

Using your logic we would have been better off not fighting the Nazis in WWII.

At the same time debt is rocketing up but you don't care about that.

 

[a_unique_person]

Because of course you won't, because your demands for evidence are never actually about standards or the truth.







The Green New Deal cannot achieve its objective, because it's not possible to without total economic collapse, and we'll change course when the economic hit becomes big enough (which it will well before our emissions hit zero). So we will continue to emit. And temperatures will continue to rise.



Consider the Paris accord. Most countries won't hit their targets, but even if they did, that wouldn't stop global warming, only slow it down a little.



Climate change is going to happen. So how do you adapt to climate change? You change what you do. And that... requires money. A struggling economy has a harder time adapting than a vibrant economy.

You seem to think adapt is a viable option.

 

[kellyb]

There is absolutely zero chance we can adapt to it. We are at the beginning of the Earth's sixth mass extinction - we are causing it, and we are the only living creatures on the earth with the ability to prevent it. If we fail to do so, we WILL become victims of it.

The wealthy are banking on being able to ride it out via migration. Mar-a-lago can just relocate to the shores of a newly balmy Greenland, and Marths's Vineyard to Newfoundland.

There is no "we" in their "adaptation" plans.

 

[applecorped]

Sunshine, lollipops and rainbows
Everything that's wonderful is sure to come your way