Bad logic on climate deal

Good Luck said:
I agree that what is coming out of the climate summit is less than useless whether human activity is having a long term global climate effect or not. I agree that it is essential to pursue alternate energy sources to reduce use of fossil petroleum.

I disagree that pursuing an unnecessarily expensive reduction in our carbon footprint is a noble goal. I disagree that it is proper to discuss what is coming out of the climate summit from the view of "let's ignore that AGW is a BS theory." There is plenty wrong with the claims that human activity is even a measurable contributing factor in global climate let alone the primary or only cause. I disagree, because the science is not nearly as "settled" as many continue to claim.

If we are going to spend billions of dollars here in the U.S., trillions world wide over the coming decades, we need to be doing so in a manner that will benefit us, not in useless, feel-good, politically correct measures like carbon sequestering. IF (and that is a fucking huge IF, in double bold block letters five miles high) the Earth is in a long term warming trend that will completely or mostly melt both polar caps, then we would be FAR better off spending our limited resources preparing for what that will mean to coastal cities, agriculture, urban water sources, etc. etc. etc.

OTOH, IF (Again in five mile high double bolded block print) the current ice melting trend results in abrupt changes that lead to an ice age, we again are far better off preparing for what that will mean to humanity instead of spending our time and resources hiding our carbon emissions. As has been pointed out, fossil oil is a limited resource. But alternate sources are a limited resource, also. Solar energy may be theoretically unlimited, but the materials with which we make the technology to convert solar flux into energy usable by our infrastructures is not unlimited.

There are also limited steps we can take to reduce use of oil that does not cripple, or at best severely hinder, the economy, not only ours but world wide. If we further waste resources burying carbon, we're shooting ourselves in the foot. If we ignore alternates which do not have the net effect of reducing carbon emissions but do have the net effect of reducing real pollutants, we are shooting ourselves in the foot.

Fact is ALL resources are limited. (With the exception of human thought.) With population pressures stretching every earth resource, its way past time we started using them more wisely, INCLUDING human thought. Do we spend our time and resources trying to shovel back the flood tide with teaspoons, or do we spend our time building levies that can handle the tidal forces? And just MAYBE, instead of spending huge amounts of money, time, and resources trying to support blaming human activity for Katrina, we need to start trying to find out which way the climate is actually going to swing so we know whether to build levies or snow fences. (if it actually swings at all - so far all we've seen is a minor burp in the grand scheme of global climate history)
Click to expand...


I only included the "qualifier" about AGW because I did not want this to turn into an AGW thread. The point was that, even if the most ardent AGW believers are RIGHT, their strategy makes no sense whatsoever.

As for weening ourselves off of carbon not being a "noble" goal, I couldn't disagree with you more. There is the pollutant factor, for one. Then, there is the national security factor. Third, there is the idea that maybe - just maybe - it makes more economic sense to funnel hundreds of billions of dollars to domestic industry every year instead of the Middle East.

And renewables are not finite. We don't have the technology right now to harness them for use on a truly mass scale, but it's coming. Scientific progress is rapid & exponential.
 
Onceler said:
As for weening ourselves off of carbon not being a "noble" goal, I couldn't disagree with you more. There is the pollutant factor, for one. Then, there is the national security factor. Third, there is the idea that maybe - just maybe - it makes more economic sense to funnel hundreds of billions of dollars to domestic industry every year instead of the Middle East.
Click to expand...
You make carbon and oil synonymous. They are not. As I stated, I fully support, demand, that our society make strong steps in getting rid of our dependence on oil, ESPECIALLY foreign oil. But that is not the same thing at all as reducing our carbon footprint. But you do make a perfect example of what I am trying to portray. You focus so hard on the idea of reducing CO2 emissions you make that and oil derived energy the same thing in your mind. And you are not alone. But by making the two the same, the end result is to bypass a number of viable alternatives to oil, such as liquifaction of coal to make clean burning diesel fuel.


Onceler said:
And renewables are not finite. We don't have the technology right now to harness them for use on a truly mass scale, but it's coming. Scientific progress is rapid & exponential.
Click to expand...
Again, whether we improve the technology or not, harnessing solar power is a finite ability using resources of the Earth. Solar power is, for our purposes, infinite. The materials needed to take advantage of solar power are not. While silicon is practically inexhaustible, the trace impurities we add to silicon to make it generate current upon exposure to light are not inexhaustible by any stretch. And no matter what we do with it, only so much solar flux hits this planet, and even with an impossible 100% conversion factor, we'll run out of room to put panels before we run out of demand for electricity. It's not like we can stack them. The room factor is also a limit on wind power. In fact will come the day when we'll be trying to decide which is a better use of a particular stretch of unoccupied land - solar or wind? (or, worse, solar, wind, or food?)

As long as we are trapped on this one planet, and as long as human population continues to grow, we will eventually be faced with resources running out. And that includes the materials to make the infrastructure for using renewable energy sources. In fact we are already starting to run up against practical limits in some areas in how much population this planet can sustain. We don't want to see continued deforestation in tropical forests, but if those countries are not allowed to develop additional agricultural lands, their people will starve. Now there is a nice conundrum to ponder.

And as long as we have a significant faction mindlessly demanding we spend money here on Earth to support the poor instead of "wasting" it on manned space programs, we're gonna be stuck on this one planet.
 
Last edited:
Good Luck said:
You make carbon and oil synonymous. They are not. As I stated, I fully support, demand, that our society make strong steps in getting rid of our dependence on oil, ESPECIALLY foreign oil. But that is not the same thing at all as reducing our carbon footprint. But you do make a perfect example of what I am trying to portray. You focus so hard on the idea of reducing CO2 emissions you make that and oil derived energy the same thing in your mind. And you are not alone. But by making the two the same, the end result is to bypass a number of viable alternatives to oil, such as liquifaction of coal to make clean burning diesel fuel.



Again, whether we improve the technology or not, harnessing solar power is a finite ability using resources of the Earth. Solar power is, for our purposes, infinite. The materials needed to take advantage of solar power are not. While silicon is practically inexhaustible, the trace impurities we add to silicon to make it generate current upon exposure to light are not inexhaustible by any stretch. And no matter what we do with it, only so much solar flux hits this planet, and even with an impossible 100% conversion factor, we'll run out of room to put panels before we run out of demand for electricity. It's not like we can stack them. The room factor is also a limit on wind power. In fact will come the day when we'll be trying to decide which is a better use of a particular stretch of unoccupied land - solar or wind? (or, worse, solar, wind, or food?)

As long as we are trapped on this one planet, and as long as human population continues to grow, we will eventually be faced with resources running out. And that includes the materials to make the infrastructure for using renewable energy sources. In fact we are already starting to run up against practical limits in some areas in how much population this planet can sustain. We don't want to see continued deforestation in tropical forests, but if those countries are not allowed to develop additional agricultural lands, their people will starve. Now there is a nice conundrum to ponder.

And as long as we have a significant faction mindlessly demanding we spend money here on Earth to support the poor instead of "wasting" it on manned space programs, we're gonna be stuck on this one planet.
Click to expand...


Think "SOYLENT GREEN". :cof1:
 
Reducing carbon emissions is a destructive goal.

Plants need co2. They create oxygen from this.

This is all about a power grab to control all human energy use. It is a totalitarian and reprehensible goal.
 
China and India increased pollution will spew 1,000 times more carbon than we rduce in the next decade. our restrictive moves are polliticle feel good victories for turbo-lobs that will cost millions of jobs.
 
Topspin said:
China and India increased pollution will spew 1,000 times more carbon than we rduce in the next decade. our restrictive moves are polliticle feel good victories for turbo-lobs that will cost millions of jobs.
Click to expand...

Yes, I always have to laugh when this gets pointed out, because Western liberals are so powerless to do anything about it.

:clink:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top