Climate change and the fossil fuel industry

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Nobody's saying to immediately get rid of all fossil fuels, they're saying to regulate the fossil fuel industry to dial back some of its damage and invest more into renewable resources so those companies can actually have room and make some money in the economy

This is failed logic. The fact that renewable energy providers don't "have room" in the economy means that as-is they aren't efficient. Leaning on them is not going to be a good thing for the economy no matter how you look at it.

get research funding so the technology can actually develop

That's all well and good, but not particularly related to how we handle the fossil fuel industry.

Really? Cause the US has more CO2 emissions than any other country aside from China.

So what's your plan for dealing with China?

And if we emphasize a shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy in a country as developed as the US, then the technology relating to renewable energy would end up advancing and developing more.

This may be true.

3. The US, a major world power and one of the members of the Council of Five or whatever in the UN, could actually push for changes in international law and policy to drive such a change on a Global scale while actually being a good example rather than coming across as a bunch of hypocrites.

...what? We're the USA. It's our job to be self-righteous hypocrites.

over with their shitty short term decisions that don't take the future into consideration at all,

The global scale aside, what you described isn't being ignorant of the future, but choosing not to care about it. There's not really anything wrong with people preferring to live well than live long. What happened to not looking down on other lifestyles? I agree that making that choice for the rest of the world would be problematic, though.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
There's not really anything wrong with people preferring to live well than live long. What happened to not looking down on other lifestyles?

EDIT: Ah I see, your referring to DMB's ethics rant in general. 🙂

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I read the rest of your post, but after I saw it turn political with Sanders and Clinton popping up again... f*ckssakes...

1. Political
2. Economic
3. Environment

We need politicians who are levelheaded and realistic in their perceptions about important stuff. We should not bring those politicians to power who are a bunch of hypocrites and a threat to societal well-being.

An (educated) society will elect the right people. By education, I assume that people are well-aware of basics of economy and society.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I'll just say that, regardless of the validity of their stance on fracking (which is not without its own considerable problems, regardless of industry attempts to "make it greener"😉, I prefer my politicians to be concerned about and attempting a solution to climate change, not ignoring it and calling it a hoax.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I don't trust private industry. I don't trust them to do something that is expensive and time consuming on their own if the government isn't forcing them to. I'm not a bitterly cynical person, but I have no faith in a massive, global, multi-bazillion dollar industry that doesn't answer to the voting electorate to NOT focus on short term gain in favour of long term solutions.

Form where do you think funding of politicians come? From the corporations. People elect politicians but corporations fund them. Industry is not trustworthy but politicians are?

Laws are policies should be devised to regulate Industrial developments, not kill the Industry itself.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
And keep that line of yours about 'adequate funding' in mind for at least the next four years. Here's hoping certain things on the U.S. don't get their budget slashed for the sake of increasing the military spending another $100 billion or so.

Modern society is a complex construct. Everything is important in it and security cannot be ignored. Military creates jobs as well and improvements is necessary for it to be prepared for emerging threats. Another state will show you no mercy, if it can kick your butt.

Originally posted by Firefly218
Emperordmb makes good points and SWLegend is hugely misinformed.

Mind telling me where I got it wrong?

Everything of daily use such as notebook, internet, mobile, furniture, car, electrical appliances, bathroom accessories, kitchen items - your entire home and office - is a product or by-product of fossil fuel industry. The same industry that fulfills your daily energy needs and is the engine of the economy of your state.

Academia, Banks, Military, Organizations - all of the modern societal constructs - depend upon fossil fuel industry to function.

Environmentalists like you - oblivious to ground realities of the world - are the real concern. Your kind takes every aspect of modern society for granted but want to be part of it (hypocrisy at its finest). But your kind wants to terminate the fossil fuel industry as well. Mind telling me how you will run the state after that?

Originally posted by Firefly218
No one is saying we should abruptly close down the fossil fuel industry, that needs to be done gradually. What we're saying needs to be done is more investment in cheaper and efficient clean energy. Development of solar technology and improvement of wind farm effectiveness. Stuff like that.

Unfortunately, republicans would rather completely reject the science of global warming and instead embolden the fossil fuel industry by lifting regulations and giving tax breaks.

FYI: China build and tested a (solar) car prototype a few years back. Guess what? It failed.

The electric cars that are much greener than petroleum cars (and possibly their replacement) - contain copper. So copper mining industry will sustain them. Guess what? Relying on a single source of energy is disastrous. Oil is not going anywhere anytime soon.

U.S. is already sustaining itself on several sources of energy. But collapsing an entire industry to appease environmentalists is reckless and stupid. And eco-friendly stuff is not cheap. Who is gonna pay for all that eco-friendly stuff? Your dad or Obama?

Economic matters should be handled with great care and changes should be calculated in advance. Don't take the economy of your country for granted. It will collapse, if taken for granted.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
This is failed logic. The fact that renewable energy providers don't "have room" in the economy means that as-is they aren't efficient. Leaning on them is not going to be a good thing for the economy no matter how you look at it.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
That's all well and good, but not particularly related to how we handle the fossil fuel industry.

And it is sort of the same issue when the same apathy driving people to not want to regulate the fossil fuel industry drives people to not care about that research and development, not to mention that this sounds like exactly the sort of thing fossil fuel lobbyists would fight.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
So what's your plan for dealing with China?

Or shit maybe with an advancement in technology, China might do it on their own considering I doubt their pleased with the air quality in their country actually being a detriment to their physical health.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
...what? We're the USA. It's our job to be self-righteous hypocrites.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
The global scale aside, what you described isn't being ignorant of the future, but choosing not to care about it. There's not really anything wrong with people preferring to live well than live long. What happened to not looking down on other lifestyles? I agree that making that choice for the rest of the world would be problematic, though.

I've adopted a stance of not hating people and having a general respect/empathy/love for all sentient beings, but that doesn't mean I refuse to recognize self-destructive actions as actually being self-destructive. If it's a calculated decision to live well but short, fair enough, but I'm speaking more about the people who want to live long happy lives and engage in self-destructive actions. The descriptive language I used for that attitude on a personal level was really more a carryover from how I feel about applying that on a societal scale than me holding contempt for people's individual lifestyles.

And really the point I was making was that an attitude that is self-destructive for the lifespan of an individual is absolutely terrible to carry over to the lifespan of the entire human race.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Well between that and the fact that the fossil fuel industry already has a pretty unparalleled foothold. Sure it'll be costly, but if done gradually I think it's a worthy investment in the future of our planet

Eh, I was speaking in a comparative sense between the fossil fuel industry and renewable energy industry.

And it is sort of the same issue when the same apathy driving people to not want to regulate the fossil fuel industry drives people to not care about that research and development, not to mention that this sounds like exactly the sort of thing fossil fuel lobbyists would fight.

The US can't impose laws on China, so I say change our ways internally, develop renewable resource technology more, then with actual progress to speak of on a national level and advances in technology push for international policy on the matter in the UN.

Or shit maybe with an advancement in technology, China might do it on their own considering I doubt their pleased with the air quality in their country actually being a detriment to their physical health.

While that may be true, the fact of the matter remains that we could push international policy better if we actually demonstrated ourselves to follow what we were trying to push.

How clever, you're only like the twelfth person whose tried to guilt trip me for that 👆

I've adopted a stance of not hating people and having a general respect/empathy/love for all sentient beings, but that doesn't mean I refuse to recognize self-destructive actions as actually being self-destructive. If it's a calculated decision to live well but short, fair enough, but I'm speaking more about the people who want to live long happy lives and engage in self-destructive actions. The descriptive language I used for that attitude on a personal level was really more a carryover from how I feel about applying that on a societal scale than me holding contempt for people's individual lifestyles.

And really the point I was making was that an attitude that is self-destructive for the lifespan of an individual is absolutely terrible to carry over to the lifespan of the entire human race.

Look at this matter in this way: fossil fuel industry has contributed to global warming phenomenon since its inception. It is an alarming development and needs attention. However, shutting down fossil fuel industry or not facilitating its advancements is not the solution.

Do you really think that if U.S. shuts down its fossil fuel industry, rest of the world will follow? No.

These are my suggestions:

1. Don't destroy your economy for the sake of appeasing environmentalists. Don't be reckless and stupid about economic matters.
2. Prioritize both Industrial base and environmental concerns but not at the cost of the other. A balanced approach is need of the hour.
3. Promote eco-friendly stuff but don't kill other stuff without a contingency plan.
4. Don't kill corporations and job opportunities. Because none of this will stop global warming or rest of the world from contributing to it.
5. Make your vote count (but don't be blind). If Democrats become reckless about economic matters, remove them from power during the next elections or stage mass protests to knock sense into them. Same goes for Republicans.
6. Most importantly, educate yourself about the importance of fossil fuel industry and its contribution to modern societal construct. Don't take it for granted.

U.S. has now reached a point that it needs to revive its industry for its economic well-being. It risks becoming a failed state otherwise and its economic demise will orchestrate global recession from which a number of states may not be able to recover.

Modern societal construct doesn't depends upon environmentalists to function, it depends upon fossil fuel industry for the said purpose. Environmentalists sound like cake-eaters (they want all the perks of modern society but want to kill fossil fuel industry as well). Stop this nonsense and be realistic.

Originally posted by Robtard
Bringing back coal in any massive amount like the 'good ole days' is stupid, it's a dying industry; the future lies elsewhere in new technologies that will become better and cheaper as technology progresses, something that has been steadily happening for a long time now. Fossil fuels are here to stay in some form, as not everyone is getting an electric car tomorrow, but improvements in fuel efficiency in turn lower the need for fossil fuels. eg Adding solar panels decreases the load for conventional electricity to a home. Water turbines in our water lines creates energy that can power buildings about them etc. etc. etc.

While other developing countries will pollute, they'll also see what's going on elsewhere and jump onboard in time. China for example is starting to invest heavily into cleaner energy sources because the air over their major cities is/has become a health risk.

In short, the future isn't in the past; morons like you really make the world a worst place.

I am not suggesting that we stick to coal as an exclusive source of energy. However, replacement should be a gradual and a well-calculated move. And even before that, it is important to understand if coal as a source of energy can be entirely phased out.

Take a look at uses of coal: https://www.worldcoal.org/coal/uses-coal

Coal is involved in manufacturing of a large number of products (in use) in any country. If environmentalists are aware of alternatives that can replace coal in those products as the vital ingredient, please highlight them. Otherwise, STFU.

Utilization of coal as a source of energy continues in reality and if it is not coming through domestic sources, it has to come through foreign sources = more imports. The Obama administration continues to stimulate trade deficit (instead of economy) with its irrational policies and national debt continues to climb. Prices of relevant products continue to appreciate as a consequence. Then government imposes higher taxes to collect revenue to keep up with the targets. And people continue to complain about bills. It is a vicious cycle. But it will eventually destroy the economy.

In-fact, efforts are being made to make coal industry eco-friendly: https://energy.gov/fe/science-innovation/clean-coal-research

However, the idiotic Obama administration has imposed restrictions on coal mining activities instead of encouraging clean coal revolution. Problem at hand is that these stupid politicians don't understand that they are ruining the economy with such reckless initiatives. Several coal mining firms have filed for bankruptcy up-till now, more jobs will be lost, coal exports are falling and imports are increasing. Economy remains strained.

#mega triggered. I have never seen someone as triggered by himself as SW legend.

Originally posted by Stop the hate
#mega triggered. I have never seen someone as triggered by himself as SW legend.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
nandearthals.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
This debate is not for nandearthals.

Even if it was for neanderthals..STH would still be outclassed intellectually by them.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Well between that and the fact that the fossil fuel industry already has a pretty unparalleled foothold.

That's because the current alternatives are costly and don't work very well.

And it is sort of the same issue when the same apathy driving people to not want to regulate the fossil fuel industry drives people to not care about that research and development, not to mention that this sounds like exactly the sort of thing fossil fuel lobbyists would fight.

Fair point; I could also say lobbyists are yet another issue in of themselves, though.

The US can't impose laws on China, so I say change our ways internally, develop renewable resource technology more, then with actual progress to speak of on a national level and advances in technology push for international policy on the matter in the UN.

That's the tricky part. Climate change is an international issue. Even if we were to dial back on environmentally harmful practices ourselves, (at substantial personal cost) there's no assurance that the rest of the world will follow suit. If they don't, our contributions'd help, but we'd still be no less doomed; it's not hard to understand why people aren't excited by that prospect.

While that may be true, the fact of the matter remains that we could push international policy better if we actually demonstrated ourselves to follow what we were trying to push.

Theoretically. That would be uncharacteristic of us, though.

How clever, you're only like the twelfth person whose tried to guilt trip me for that.

Dear god, why are you always so angry? I just want you to be consistent.

I've adopted a stance of not hating people and having a general respect/empathy/love for all sentient beings, but that doesn't mean I refuse to recognize self-destructive actions as actually being self-destructive.

--and this ties in to that discussion from a couple months ago. I recall you went on about something along the lines of, "It's stupid to fight with people over differing opinions," but like I said, it's really not that simple, is it?

Originally posted by Stop the hate
I have never seen someone as triggered by himself as SW legend.

This statement pretty much proves you have zero self reflection going on.

This is funny, I always love when people are so indoctrinated into an idea they can't even begin to see the impact.

Here is the real question, are you willing to let the poorest people in the country die to extend the time till the the next die off?

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
This is funny, I always love when people are so indoctrinated into an idea they can't even begin to see the impact.

Here is the real question, are you willing to let the poorest people in the country die to extend the time till the the next die off?

But there is one variable you have to consider. Which year the poor people are dying in. If it's not an election year then they are not going to care much.

Originally posted by Surtur
Even if it was for neanderthals..STH would still be outclassed intellectually by them.

Shale Gas Drags US Energy Emissions to 25-Year Low: http://www.the-american-interest.co...to-25-year-low/

Shale gas—not EPA rules—has pushed decline in coal-generated electricity, study confirms: http://phys.org/news/2016-10-shale-...as-decline.html

---

Support shale revolution, people. It is a game-changer.

Admittedly I just skimmed through this thread, but I want to put it out there:

natural climate change vs. human-made climate change.

It seems that both of these get mixed up a lot in the media and in general discussion. Climate is changing, but the question is about the causes. It would be great if in this thread we could be precise what we are talking about.

Peace!

Originally posted by Stigma
Admittedly I just skimmed through this thread, but I want to put it out there:

[b]natural climate change vs. human-made climate change.

It seems that both of these get mixed up a lot in the media and in general discussion. Climate is changing, but the question is about the causes. It would be great if in this thread we could be precise what we are talking about.

Peace! [/B]

Also people seem to get confused over how science works. Let us say I believe a certain thing, and 1,000 other scientists do as well. Consensus doesn't equate to reality. 1,000 people could think one thing, 1 guy could think the other, and that lone guy could be the one who is correct.

But then how could there be so much damn controversy over man made climate change if we have 100% irrefutable evidence? I assume there isn't a single respectable scientist who has come out against the idea of man made climate change? Surely all the detractors must be saying weird things like "it's a Chinese hoax". It would be disappointing to learn there's legit arguments against man made climate change, because the liberal media sure doesn't reflect that.