• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

What will it take to convince you of climate change?

nbean16 said:
Thats partly why people immediately jump on board, because its a positive in the end whether ther is agw or not. You couldnt care less whether man made climate change was real. Its just a means to an end. And i understand that to an extent. Cleaning up the planet isnt a bad thing.
Click to expand...

But you still haven't answered my question. You said both sides can make billions of dollars but I don't know how you would make money fighting climate change.
 
Oh there is a lot of money to be made just administering bogus programs.
Richardson Bay has at least 8 different committees monitoring, manipulating, and enforcing.
 
Politics?

How can this not be involved when POTUS in the wake of numerous terrorist attacks considers CC the most important issue of our times.

And yes, there's billions involved mainly in government grants to perpetuate the idea, and more $$$$$ for bogus green investments that couldn't succeed on there own. Those crony capitalists need to keep CC alive to rake in their subsidies.:thumbdown

Not to mention our legislatures getting to jerk our chains with myriad new laws. :thumbdown
 
Pierre I am said:
But you still haven't answered my question. You said both sides can make billions of dollars but I don't know how you would make money fighting climate change.
Click to expand...

Primarily through taxation. "we need a metric fuckton of dollars to fight the growing menace of AGW" (with added fees/taxation). Stating the obvious of course, but no govt. administered programs operate efficiently, they tend to do back doors deals, and transparency is non-existent.

California is doing away with diesels for commercial trucks and it has shifted the burden to strapped municipalities and mid sized contractors. Maybe these changes flow money back into the economy by encouraging new tech and manufacturing, but it's going to be a rough transition.

Letting the infrastructure we all use crumble while hiking taxes and fees is nuts. Improving transportation, updating antiquated water systems, and discouraging regulatory capture of emerging markets should be our national priorities.
 
Pierre I am said:
But you still haven't answered my question. You said both sides can make billions of dollars but I don't know how you would make money fighting climate change.
Click to expand...

What others said. There is billions to he made by governments and private companies alike. Chicago was sued by farmers insurance for millions of dollars after a flood because the city shouldve known global warming was real and prepared for damage. Not sure if this happened in other cities yet. They lost the case, but dont kid yourself, theres money all over this issue on both sides, whether real or not.
 
nakedape said:
Primarily through taxation. "we need a metric fuckton of dollars to fight the growing menace of AGW" (with added fees/taxation). Stating the obvious of course, but no govt. administered programs operate efficiently, they tend to do back doors deals, and transparency is non-existent.


Letting the infrastructure we all use crumble while hiking taxes and fees is nuts. Improving transportation, updating antiquated water systems, and discouraging regulatory capture of emerging markets should be our national priorities.
Click to expand...

+1 So spot on
 
If anyone at this time needs convincing, then .... They aren't convince-able.
That's just the way the mop flops...
 
Fair enough but all those points can be applied just as equally to the other side of the topic with the oil companies.
 
kevin 714 said:
There were people on Easter island who didn't think the trees were disappearing either
Click to expand...

:laughing or :( But, Yes Easter Island was a study in bad thinking.

Wiping out the tree's for home heating and cooking, (and hut building), Then no logs for raft or boat building... Even fishing became limited, and escaping was not possible. What came next was a horror.
 
Pierre I am said:
Fair enough but all those points can be applied just as equally to the other side of the topic with the oil companies.
Click to expand...

That's the failed model climate change regulation will follow, or rather, the same type of players. Many of the deals have been cut, now they are just grubbing for dollars.

Some personal responsibility would be nice. Victory gardens in ww2 are a good example. Millions of people essentially shifted resources for the greater good by producing their own food. If we tore out lawns and made edible gardens it would reduce truck miles driven and lower health care costs. This is how other countries work, supplementing commodities wth home grown.

Maybe we are so lazy and disinterested we deserve to pay the actual costs of production with true environmental costs built in. Hello five dollar heads of lettuce. Too bad these costs will feed dividends instead of raising wages, even if some magical program could remediate environmental harm on a large scale.
 
Modern examples of how denuding the landscape leads to economic reprisals:
Haiti
Iceland
 
tzrider said:
Fossil fuel remains the most cost effective energy source we have. You might want to rethink the above statement.
Click to expand...

*for the time being. It's a finite supply. Wind energy has a payback time of year and then the rest is pure profit + it's renewable aka infinite.
 
Pierre I am said:
*for the time being. It's a finite supply. Wind energy has a payback time of year and then the rest is pure profit + it's renewable aka infinite.
Click to expand...

The flaw in your argument of course is that the machinery used to capture wind energy is not infinite. It requires maintenance to keep it going. And infrastructure for power transmission. That's not free. Not to mention it's an eyesore. :thumbdown

I don't know how you're calculating payback, but I'll submit this: there's a reason it has to be subsidized by taxpayers. There is no rational payback.:wow
 
Pierre I am said:
*for the time being. It's a finite supply. Wind energy has a payback time of year and then the rest is pure profit + it's renewable aka infinite.
Click to expand...

There was a big push in Agriculture to use wind power (i.e. tax credits/subsidies). I've had 5 different growers install windmills and none of them are still functioning - high maintenance costs and catastrophic failures.

Solar is the latest thing, but it has a 10+ year payback even after figuring in the tax credits.
 
mrmarklin said:
The flaw in your argument of course is that the machinery used to capture wind energy is not infinite. It requires maintenance to keep it going. And infrastructure for power transmission. That's not free. Not to mention it's an eyesore. :thumbdown

I don't know how you're calculating payback, but I'll submit this: there's a reason it has to be subsidized by taxpayers. There is no rational payback.:wow
Click to expand...

Not to mention, energy storage remains a problem. Nobody has gotten electric cars to the point where they can be re-energized as quickly as you can a gasoline car to go the same distance. We're a long way off from that. doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue it, but this is another example of a whole new industry poised to make a killing from climate change legislation.
 
nakedape said:
Some personal responsibility would be nice. Victory gardens in ww2 are a good example. Millions of people essentially shifted resources for the greater good by producing their own food. If we tore out lawns and made edible gardens it would reduce truck miles driven and lower health care costs. This is how other countries work, supplementing commodities wth home grown.
Click to expand...

My mother did this while I was growing up as a hobby. Honestly, the hours she spent maintaining the garden where numerous, the gardens output would feed the family for 1 week. While a good idea, just like wind and solar, not enough to sustain the need.
 
tzrider said:
Not to mention, energy storage remains a problem. Nobody has gotten electric cars to the point where they can be re-energized as quickly as you can a gasoline car to go the same distance. We're a long way off from that. doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue it, but this is another example of a whole new industry poised to make a killing from climate change legislation.
Click to expand...

But...his first example is wrong. You'd never need an infinite amount machinery to supply energy for a known amount of energy usage. And everyone knows the early versions of things are shitty and you just have to go through the motions anyway, it's akin to the early discovery process that you'd find at almost any tech company. And we'll get there with fast charge, cell phones will probably lead the tech.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top