[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2012-October-02, 06:33, said:

those who favor actions such as cap & trade don't really care whether or not AGW is "real"... they want to influence behavior they dislike

What motive do I have to suppress C02 production?

Let's assume that I don't believe that there is any link between C02 production and climate change...

What motivates my great dislike of C02 production and why would I want to discourage it?

[Daniel1960]

hrothgar, on 2012-October-02, 07:58, said:

What motive do I have to suppress C02 production?

Let's assume that I don't believe that there is any link between C02 production and climate change...

What motivates my great dislike of C02 production and why would I want to discourage it?

There are those who wish to discontinue all use of carbon-based fuels. This is not limited to just burning for energy purposes, but also drilling, shipping, pipelines, refining, etc. It has less to do with CO2 liberation, than the complete ceasation of the petroleum industry. Whether any link between CO2 and climate changes exists is irrelevant, as long as they can prevent the oil companies from operating. What they would suggest to replace this for energy use is anybody's guess (many seem to be anti-nuclear, anti-hydroelectric, and anti-wind also). I guess that would require the entire planet to be covered with solar panels, but I can envision a problem with that also.

[PassedOut]

Daniel1960, on 2012-October-02, 08:34, said:

There are those who wish to discontinue all use of carbon-based fuels. This is not limited to just burning for energy purposes, but also drilling, shipping, pipelines, refining, etc. It has less to do with CO2 liberation, than the complete ceasation of the petroleum industry. Whether any link between CO2 and climate changes exists is irrelevant, as long as they can prevent the oil companies from operating.

I don't know anyone like that myself. Of the folks that you know who think like this, what motivations have they given you for their position?

[Daniel1960]

PassedOut, on 2012-October-02, 08:49, said:

I don't know anyone like that myself. Of the folks that you know who think like this, what motivations have they given you for their position?

Most of the time they talk about the "dirty energy companies," who have raped the earth, through drilling and mining, and have made enormous amounts of money by overcharging the people. Pollution is also mentioned due to oil and toxic chemicals spills. Most are staunch environmentalists who oppose anything energy, but oppose most development also. If you do not know any personally, do a quick internet search. You should be able to find numerous websites detailing these characteristics.

[PassedOut]

Daniel1960, on 2012-October-02, 09:15, said:

If you do not know any personally, do a quick internet search. You should be able to find numerous websites detailing these characteristics.

I looked over some of the main environmentalist sites, and saw that many of them oppose nuclear power. But I did not see any that call for "the complete ceasation of the petroleum industry." I'd appreciate it if you could supply a link to an environmental website that does.

[Daniel1960]

Passedout, here are a few sites for starters:

http://www.earthwork...no_dirty_energy

http://www.greenpeac...rgy/blog/40117/

http://dirtyenergyfreedom.org/

http://www.globalexc...ams/dirtyenergy

http://www.nrcm.org/...e_windpower.asp

http://www.beyondcoal.org/

http://michigan.sier...ergy/index.html

http://www.elephantj...newable-energy/

[hrothgar]

At random, I decided to visit "Beyond Coal"

What did I find as the opening lede on the very first page I clicked through:

Quote

Carbon pollution is the main contributor to climate disruption and is linked to life-threatening air pollution like asthma-inducing smog, making it a serious threat to Americans’ health and future.

http://www.beyondcoal.org/dirty-truth

The second page I looked at stated the following:

Quote

The cleanest way to meet our electricity needs is by getting the most out of the energy we already use. By planning well and using today's technology, we can cut our electricity consumption, save homeowners and businesses money and create thousands of new jobs. Improving energy efficiency lowers energy bills, eliminates the need for new power plants, increases our energy security, and puts people to work.

[PassedOut]

More from those links:

GreenPeace

Quote

But if we are not careful, the Internet could become an internal combustion engine that fuels climate change instead.

Natural Resources Council of Maine

Quote

The vast majority of the electricity consumed in Maine—and the United States—comes from harmful, polluting sources: coal, oil, and gas. We have become deeply dependent on these fossil fuels in their many forms and uses. While there is no single solution that will eliminate harmful air and global warming pollution from these fuels, increasing the proportion of energy that we get from renewable resources is an essential part of the mix.

Michigan Sierra Club

Quote

Global Warming is already affecting Michigan in many ways, and the threat is growing. But our state is far behind many of other states when it comes to controling our contributions of greenhouse gases that threaten our children's future. Even though slow progress is being made, our Michigan leaders must be convinced to move faster and smarter to prevent worse damage to the planet. Learn what you can do and join our campaign!

It is true that some of the sites call for stronger regulation, but that is not the same as shutting down the entire industry. Over time, of course, the depletion of carbon fuels will force changes. The question is: How will we guard our planet while we migrate to different sources of energy?

EarthWorksAction

Quote

We fight for public disclosure of hazardous chemicals used in drilling, tough regulations to protect public health, and strong federal oversight of the oil and gas industry.

GlobalExchange

Quote

By joining with allies from around the world, we work to help uncover and expose these harms and to stand with these communities in one powerful movement. We create a powerful base advocating for real policy change - for as long as we continue to use oil, its operations will be as clean, safe, humane, and equitable as possible as we work to move away from oil altogether and towards a clean sustainable energy future.

DirtyEnergyFreedom

Quote

The oil spill's destruction of the Gulf of Mexico is a devastating reminder that the price of our fossil fuel dependence is far too high. Don't let history repeat itself.

Stand in solidarity with the struggling families affected by the Gulf oil spill.

Shouldn't BP and other oil companies be responsible for safe drilling and for compensating the Gulf Coast victims of their spills?

There may be crank sites of the type you mention, but you can find crank sites with every nutty claim imaginable. Conservatives proposed and advocate the carbon tax, and we most certainly believe in a free market.

[Daniel1960]

There may be crank sites of the type you mention, but you can find crank sites with every nutty claim imaginable. Conservatives proposed and advocate the carbon tax, and we most certainly believe in a free market.
[/quote]

I do not consider these "Crank sites," but they do propose the elimination of what they call, "dirty energy," a.k.a. carbon-based fuels. Enron was the first to propose a carbon tax.

[dwar0123]

Daniel1960, on 2012-October-02, 13:47, said:

I do not consider these "Crank sites," but they do propose the elimination of what they call, "dirty energy," a.k.a. carbon-based fuels. Enron was the first to propose a carbon tax.

I don't think he was suggesting that they were crank sites, I think he was suggesting that you are a crank for thinking that these sites actually propose the elimination of dirty energy.

He was making a caveat that there might be some crank sites that actually do propose the immediate elimination of all dirty energy, but these are not those sites and you have not actually found one yet.

[PassedOut]

dwar0123, on 2012-October-02, 14:00, said:

I don't think he was suggesting that they were crank sites, I think he was suggesting that you are a crank for thinking that these sites actually propose the elimination of dirty energy.

He was making a caveat that there might be some crank sites that actually do propose the immediate elimination of all dirty energy, but these are not those sites and you have not actually found one yet.

Yes, there may be some such sites somewhere (I haven't found any yet), but none of his examples support his claim that environmentalists don't care about global warming, nor do his examples call for the shutdown of the petroleum industry anytime soon. They do advocate increasing the proportion of renewable energy and making certain that carbon fuels are extracted as cleanly and responsibly as possible while the proportion of those dirtier fuels declines (as eventually it must).

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on 2012-October-02, 07:58, said:

hat motivates my great dislike of C02 production and why would I want to discourage it?

it's what the co2 production represents, not the co2 in and of itself, which was my point

PassedOut, on 2012-October-02, 14:33, said:

They do advocate increasing the proportion of renewable energy and making certain that carbon fuels are extracted as cleanly and responsibly as possible while the proportion of those dirtier fuels declines (as eventually it must).

give me an example of renewable energy and how we go about "increasing the proportion of renewable energy"

how do you suggest "making certain that carbon fuels are extracted as cleanly and responsibly as possible" all "while the proportion of those dirtier fuels declines (as eventually it must)."

i agree that eventually it must, but the emphasis is on the "eventually" as in, when the technology is available... what do you suggest we do in the meantime? imagine for a moment, just for the sake of argument, that a carbon tax is placed on plants that produce electricity, and on oil refineries... what would be the result of those taxes to the consumer, in the world we presently inhabit?

[dwar0123]

luke warm, on 2012-October-02, 15:46, said:

it's what the co2 production represents, not the co2 in and of itself, which was my point

Not sure what you are getting at.

Quote

give me an example of renewable energy and how we go about "increasing the proportion of renewable energy"

Obviously nuclear power isn't renewable, but that isn't a quote of passedout's belief.

Quote

how do you suggest "making certain that carbon fuels are extracted as cleanly and responsibly as possible" all "while the proportion of those dirtier fuels declines (as eventually it must)."

I read the eventually in "eventually must" as in we are consuming them faster then nature is renewing them, thus they will eventually run out.

Quote

i agree that eventually it must, but the emphasis is on the "eventually" as in, when the technology is available...

Just because we have the technology doesn't mean we have to use it. The proportion of the dirtier fuels will decline in lock step with our technology ability? Nonsense.

Quote

what do you suggest we do in the meantime? imagine for a moment, just for the sake of argument, that a carbon tax is placed on plants that produce electricity, and on oil refineries... what would be the result of those taxes to the consumer, in the world we presently inhabit?

Consumers will end up paying more in taxes for their energy, however, the government can use that revenue to offset taxes from other sources creating a net overall wash in taxes for the consumers.

Just incase you didn't follow that.

The cost of coal sourced energy goes up due to taxes.
The revenue collected from the coal tax is offset by tax breaks elsewhere, net effect no tax increase.

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on 2012-October-02, 15:46, said:

give me an example of renewable energy and how we go about "increasing the proportion of renewable energy"

how do you suggest "making certain that carbon fuels are extracted as cleanly and responsibly as possible" all "while the proportion of those dirtier fuels declines (as eventually it must)."

i agree that eventually it must, but the emphasis is on the "eventually" as in, when the technology is available... what do you suggest we do in the meantime? imagine for a moment, just for the sake of argument, that a carbon tax is placed on plants that produce electricity, and on oil refineries... what would be the result of those taxes to the consumer, in the world we presently inhabit?

I can't speak for the sites that Daniel1960 recommended. You'll have to check them out yourself if you need more elaboration of their views.

As for the carbon tax, I expect it would have an effect here similar to its effects where it is already in place: a measurable drop in CO2 emissions and a slight improvement in the economy.

[PassedOut]

Daniel1960, on 2012-October-02, 09:15, said:

Most of the time they talk about the "dirty energy companies," who have raped the earth, through drilling and mining, and have made enormous amounts of money by overcharging the people. Pollution is also mentioned due to oil and toxic chemicals spills.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that lots of environmentalists pretend to be supporting a carbon tax to curb global warming. But their real agenda is to save fishing jobs by stopping oil companies from poisoning the fish, and to keep gas frakkers from poisoning the drinking water.

Sorry, I just don't see what such a deception could accomplish.

I certainly oppose efforts to block nuclear power. However, I do think it reasonable to protect the cleanliness of our air and water.

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on 2012-October-02, 16:41, said:

I can't speak for the sites that Daniel1960 recommended. You'll have to check them out yourself if you need more elaboration of their views.

if you don't know, just say so

Quote

As for the carbon tax, I expect it would have an effect here similar to its effects where it is already in place: a measurable drop in CO2 emissions and a slight improvement in the economy.

i was asking for its effect on the average worker who drives, say, 30 miles/day

[Daniel1960]

PassedOut, on 2012-October-02, 21:04, said:

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that lots of environmentalists pretend to be supporting a carbon tax to curb global warming. But their real agenda is to save fishing jobs by stopping oil companies from poisoning the fish, and to keep gas frakkers from poisoning the drinking water.

Sorry, I just don't see what such a deception could accomplish.

I certainly oppose efforts to block nuclear power. However, I do think it reasonable to protect the cleanliness of our air and water.

Passedout,
No, that is not correct. I do not know of any environmentalists pretending to be against global warming or not caring about it. I am not sure where you picked that up. Seperately, most environmentalists are opposed to "Big Oil," "The Dirty Energy Companies," or whatever else they what to call them. It involves more than poisoning fish, etc., in that they have a lot of money and power to enact legislation to which they oppose. Not to mention the increase in CO2. The only deception involved is that any energy stemming from carbon-based materials is somehow "dirty" (I noticed that you called them "dirty" also).

The air and water can be protected by enacting certain measures in both extraction and production. I am not opposed to efforts to enact these measures, but to advocate eliminating the entire industry, doe not make any sense to me. Enacting a carbon tax or vouchers, which has had no measureable effect on CO2 in those areas tested (i.e Europe), would only create another level of money-making enterprises, and cost us more in the end. Enron tried to set this up a decade ago (in an efforts to make billions), but went under when their efforts failed.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2012-October-03, 04:09, said:

i was asking for its effect on the average worker who drives, say, 30 miles/day

More than on the worker that drives 10 miles and less than on the worker who drives 60

I appreciate that some types of carbon emission are more difficult to curtail than others.
People who chose a life style that requires long commutes fall into this category.

(For example, right now, the new job requires that I commute from Natick into Boston.
However, I'm able to take commuter rail.
Convenient access to commuter rail was a deliberate choice when I bought my condo)

I don't have much sympathy for folks who don't want to pay the true costs for their consumption choices.
Society should not be subsidizing their lifestyle choices.

[billw55]

mike777, on 2012-October-02, 00:06, said:

Good points but I hope the debate starts here:


"There is no resource-management strategy that can prevent disasters just as there is no scientific method that provides only true theories.

But there are ideas that reliably cause disasters and one of them is, notoriously, the idea that the future can be scientifically planned.

Trying to predict what our net effect on the environment will be for the next century and then subordinating all policy decisions to optimizing that prediction cannot work."

Who is this quoting?

[hrothgar]

billw55, on 2012-October-03, 07:14, said:

Who is this quoting?

David Deutsch