Global Warmers Promote Dark Ages, Permanently

[JonathanQuick]

Barack Obama has stated that we must cut our carbon emissions 80% by 2050.

The United (sic) Nations has stated that we must cut our carbon emissions 80% by 2050.

National Geographic, the Sierra Club, Governor Schwarzenegger, and countless other governments, organizations, groups, and individuals are all preaching doomsday scenarios arising from anthropogenic carbon dioxide.

The ONLY solution is to cut back 80%.

How easily such pronouncements trip from the lips of Barack Obama, or Al Gore, or U.N. General Secretary Ban Ki-moon.

WHO is willing to return to the dark ages, permanently. Show of hands please?

By 2050, world population will be ~40% greater than it is today.

Please divide the allowable 20% of energy by 1.40. You get 14.2%.
Everyone in favor of cutting your PERSONAL use of energy by 86%, please feel free to do so.
No more vacations.
No more driving anywhere, except MAYBE to work, with several others in carpool.
No more heating your home in winter.
No more cooling it in winter.
No more cooked food.
No more hot showers.
No more hot water.
Close all amusement parks, all movie houses, all restaurants, all places of entertainment. All those people will be unemployed.
No need to sell any more cars. We'll look like Cuba. It's environmentally correct.

Fortunately, the Important People will all still be going to their conferences around the world. They'll fly and drive to their hearts' contents, and dine on steak and lobster at government expense. It's only fair.
Why videoconference when you can go first class, to Cancun.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

WHO is willing to return to the dark ages, permanently. Show of hands please?

It's worse than that.

As soon as Mankind discovered fire, he was putting out carbon emissions beyond those that just came from simply breathing. In fact, dirty wood- or coal-burning fires probably would have resulted in greater carbon emissions per-person than our much more modern energy sources.

The warmers don't want us to go back to the Dark Ages. To satisfy them, we'd need to go much, much farther backward than that.

 

[a_unique_person]

You are confusing energy consumption, CO2 emissions and lifestyle. They are not directly related to each other. Efficient energy usage reduces emissions without affecting lifestyle. Energy can be made without emissions of CO2. Lifestyle can be modified without affecting it's quality.

 

[JonathanQuick]

You are confusing energy consumption, CO2 emissions and lifestyle. They are not directly related to each other. Efficient energy usage reduces emissions without affecting lifestyle. Energy can be made without emissions of CO2. Lifestyle can be modified without affecting it's (SIC) quality.

Uh huh.

Specifics?

You're going to fly to, oh Mumbai, with 3000 guests, as Obama is doing, HOW, exactly?

You're going to go see Aunt Martha in Tacoma HOW, without CO2 emissions?

Nota bene: over half of the electricity in America is produced by burning fossil fuels.

HOW will tourists get to Disneyland, again, from Sacramento? Exactly?

 

[tyr_13]

Uh huh.

Specifics?

You're going to fly to, oh Mumbai, with 3000 guests, as Obama is doing, HOW, exactly?

You're going to go see Aunt Martha in Tacoma HOW, without CO2 emissions?

Nota bene: over half of the electricity in America is produced by burning fossil fuels.

HOW will tourists get to Disneyland, again, from Sacramento? Exactly?

Nuclear power plants supplemented by hydro, solar, wind, and tidal, powering EV vehicles, high speed rail, or on more efficient jet aircraft using fuel scrubbed from the air by the aforementioned nuclear plants during low power use periods or bio-sequestered.

You and Bob are making the exact same mistakes that a lot of anti-human activists pretending to be environmentalists make. You assume that 'changing lifestyle' means regression. Sure there are things we need to change and move away from, but we are already 'naturally' doing that. Better city and suburb design for example. Better use of farm space to protect wonderful (and useful by the way) natural areas. Moving away from fossil fuels. Yes, some of these changes need to be 'enforced' through responsible regulation, just like a lot of needed changes in the past. We adjusted to not being allowed to throw all our crap in the river just fine thank you.

By the way, I'm sure someone is going to disagree with me and paint some future where we all have to switch to organic, don't use toilet paper, etc, because of some flaws with my examples. So I'm preemptively calling 'perfect solution fallacy'.

 

[Bikewer]

I agree with tyr 13 on this; in that all this is within the realm of possibility, and according to numbers of studies, will result in net gains for world economies and job production.

However, I despair that anything will be done, or done in a timely manner. Initial costs, the enormous political clout (and money) of the fossil-fuel sector...

Look at the resistance to such rather benign technology as wind farms.

 

[The Don]

IMO it'll only happen when it becomes commercially advantageous (either through government subsidy and/or increased energy costs) to do so.

When it does, the full political and commercial momentum will be behind the change and it'll happen remarkably quickly and only a little too late.

We do need safe baseload power generation which does not generate CO2 (and more pertinently perhaps doesn't use precious fossil fuels). This is most likely to come from nuclear but I imagine tidal, hydroelectric and geothermal may have a significant role to play.

 

[WildCat]

We do need safe baseload power generation which does not generate CO2 (and more pertinently perhaps doesn't use precious fossil fuels). This is most likely to come from nuclear but I imagine tidal, hydroelectric and geothermal may have a significant role to play.

I don't think there will be much more hydroelectric power built. All the good places are already dammed, and hydroelectric brings significant ecological damage. I expect hydroelectric to decline over the next few decades, not to expand.

 

[elbe]

I find it interesting that the free market, apparently, wouldn't be able to find solutions for tightened CO2 emission rules. I think some people underestimate the ingenuity of the human animal. Nope, we'll all be descended into the hell that was the pre-industrial age (not the dark ages, that's just silly), no chance for technology, and humanity, to adapt - even though it's what we do best.

 

[mhaze]

AGWwoo=Woo*(+-1.10)^20

 

[WildCat]

I find it interesting that the free market, apparently, wouldn't be able to find solutions for tightened CO2 emission rules.

Who says it couldn't? Problem is, all the solutions will result in higher prices for the consumer. But at least it would actually be a solution, unlike some government "solutions" like corn ethanol, which doesn't actually increase the supply of energy at all and impose higher costs on the consumer.

There won't be any free lunches. Nuclear generates waste. Solar is expensive, takes a huge footprint, and of course only works half the time. Wind also takes a huge footprint, is noisy, expensive, obstructs views, and kills bats and birds. Hydroelectric devastates ecosystems.

Pick your poison(s).

 

[elbe]

Who says it couldn't? Problem is, all the solutions will result in higher prices for the consumer. But at least it would actually be a solution, unlike some government "solutions" like corn ethanol, which doesn't actually increase the supply of energy at all and impose higher costs on the consumer.

There won't be any free lunches. Nuclear generates waste. Solar is expensive, takes a huge footprint, and of course only works half the time. Wind also takes a huge footprint, is noisy, expensive, obstructs views, and kills bats and birds. Hydroelectric devastates ecosystems.

Pick your poison(s).

I never said there wouldn't be a price, but the OP suggests we can't adapt. My criticism is of the OPs hyperbole and poor understanding of, well, anything as far as I can tell.

 

[mhaze]

I find it interesting that the free market, apparently, wouldn't be able to find solutions for tightened CO2 emission rules. I think some people underestimate the ingenuity of the human animal. Nope, we'll all be descended into the hell that was the pre-industrial age (not the dark ages, that's just silly), no chance for technology, and humanity, to adapt - even though it's what we do best.

Yes, such destruction of modern technological society is a possible consequence of totalitarian micromanagement of individuals lifestyle including carbon emissions, as well as a consequence of the control over industry such as crazed global warmers want.

Oh, and you got it wrong. Pre Industrial pretty much does imply dark ages, here and there. Right now, we've only got one in North Korea, last time I looked. A couple decades ago, we had them in the communist block countries of Russia and China. So we're doing considerably better than yesterday, but that doesn't mean tomorrow retains those positives.

 

[elbe]

Oh, and you got it wrong. Pre Industrial pretty much does imply dark ages, here and there.

In that both lack modern tech? Why yes, yes they do. But that's not why the dark ages was called the dark ages.

 

[Mikemcc]

Barack Obama has stated that we must cut our carbon emissions 80% by 2050.

The United (sic) Nations has stated that we must cut our carbon emissions 80% by 2050.

National Geographic, the Sierra Club, Governor Schwarzenegger, and countless other governments, organizations, groups, and individuals are all preaching doomsday scenarios arising from anthropogenic carbon dioxide.

The ONLY solution is to cut back 80%.

How easily such pronouncements trip from the lips of Barack Obama, or Al Gore, or U.N. General Secretary Ban Ki-moon.

WHO is willing to return to the dark ages, permanently. Show of hands please?

By 2050, world population will be ~40% greater than it is today.

Please divide the allowable 20% of energy by 1.40. You get 14.2%.
Everyone in favor of cutting your PERSONAL use of energy by 86%, please feel free to do so.
No more vacations.
No more driving anywhere, except MAYBE to work, with several others in carpool.
No more heating your home in winter.
No more cooling it in winter.
No more cooked food.
No more hot showers.
No more hot water.
Close all amusement parks, all movie houses, all restaurants, all places of entertainment. All those people will be unemployed.
No need to sell any more cars. We'll look like Cuba. It's environmentally correct.

Fortunately, the Important People will all still be going to their conferences around the world. They'll fly and drive to their hearts' contents, and dine on steak and lobster at government expense. It's only fair.
Why videoconference when you can go first class, to Cancun.

Any proof of this woo scare story?

 

[tyr_13]

I don't think there will be much more hydroelectric power built. All the good places are already dammed, and hydroelectric brings significant ecological damage. I expect hydroelectric to decline over the next few decades, not to expand.

I expect the number of hydroelectric stations to decrease, but the effeminacy to increase along with less intrusive design. The overall load generated by hydroelectric might decrease, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it stay even.

 

[Howie Felterbush]

I don't think there will be much more hydroelectric power built. All the good places are already dammed, and hydroelectric brings significant ecological damage. I expect hydroelectric to decline over the next few decades, not to expand.

Amen, brother.

Dams are bad. They mess up the trout fishing. Admittedly, dams have given rise to some really good tailwater fisheries (The White River in Arkansas springs to mind) but the damage they do upstream outweighs the benefits downstream.

 

[The Don]

There may also be scope for small-scale hydro.

Back in the middle ages there were lots of water mills. Small comparatively isolated communities could provide at least some of their electricity by opening up old mill races

 

[tyr_13]

Amen, brother.

Dams are bad. They mess up the trout fishing. Admittedly, dams have given rise to some really good tailwater fisheries (The White River in Arkansas springs to mind) but the damage they do upstream outweighs the benefits downstream.

Not all hydroelectric stations need dams. The vast majority currently do of course, I just thought it deserves pointing out.

 

[Mikemcc]

There may also be scope for small-scale hydro.

Back in the middle ages there were lots of water mills. Small comparatively isolated communities could provide at least some of their electricity by opening up old mill races

There's all sorts of novel schemes coming into use.

Esholt water treatment works in the UK has just installed a pair of archimedes screws driving generators producing 180kW of electricity.

http://kn.theiet.org/magazine/issues/1014/archimedes-screw-1014.cfm