Science & Technology News

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by GordMay

. . . What conservatives most object to, is not the science, but the solutions.. . .

Indeed. And not listening to those objections, some of which are actually sound (not all of them), is exactly what keeps us from being able to implement any effective solutions to climate change.

A significant number of conservatives are concerned about climate change, in fact I think concern about climate change is roughly equal across the political spectrum in societies (like in the Nordic countries) without our extreme, tribalized, poisonous polarization. And even in the U.S., a growing number of conservatives, especially the young, recognize climate change as a major problem which requires action: https://www.newsweek.com/young-conse...change-1572139

Anti-capitalist and anti-libertarian solutions proposed for climate change, like the Green New Deal, are not the only possible solutions to climate change (and not the most effective, either). The absence of any respectful dialogue on the issue in the U.S. is precisely why we lag almost the whole world in implementing any solutions to climate change.

Solving climate change isn't even all that hard -- we have all the resources and all the technology we need already to get off fossil fuels even faster than the Paris Agreement calls for. We do not have to end the market system or use economically destructive measures to do it. Fossil fuels are anyway obsolete; they only need a little nudge to disappear, and then we will have cheaper and better energy from advanced nuclear plants and renewables. Even without carbon taxes, Finland, for example, has 90% decarbonized its electrical power production, using large amounts of nuclear plus renewables, and at the same time has the cheapest electrical power rates in Europe (excluding former Communist states). It's not rocket science!

This would probably even happen anyway, but a carbon tax appropriately pricing externalities would do the trick in no time. The harder part of solving climate change will be getting people off eating meat and dairy products, or at least drastically reducing it. Unlike ending fossil fuels, that is not something which will happen all by itself.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Indeed. And not listening to those objections, some of which are actually sound (not all of them), is exactly what keeps us from being able to implement any effective solutions to climate change.

Would you care to elaborate more completely?

A significant number of conservatives are concerned about climate change, in fact I think concern about climate change is roughly equal across the political spectrum in societies (like in the Nordic countries) without our extreme, tribalized, poisonous polarization. And even in the U.S., a growing number of conservatives, especially the young, recognize climate change as a major problem which requires action: https://www.newsweek.com/young-conse...change-1572139

It appears to me that one of the big differences between the US and Europeans is that there is a much larger population of very conservative Christians in the US who, because of their faith, are frequently very anti-AGW. I know for a fact that two of the most vocal (and often nasty) "deniers" on CF are conservative Christians.

Anti-capitalist and anti-libertarian solutions proposed for climate change, like the Green New Deal, are not the only possible solutions to climate change (and not the most effective, either). The absence of any respectful dialogue on the issue in the U.S. is precisely why we lag almost the whole world in implementing any solutions to climate change.

For those interested, here is The Green New Deal resolution.

Seems to me a bit pie-in-the-skyish, but has lots of commendable aspirations. Not sure it's anti-capitalist, as it includes businesses as partners, but it certainly involves regulating businesses, which we already do.

Solving climate change isn't even all that hard -- we have all the resources and all the technology we need already to get off fossil fuels even faster than the Paris Agreement calls for. We do not have to end the market system or use economically destructive measures to do it. Fossil fuels are anyway obsolete; they only need a little nudge to disappear, and then we will have cheaper and better energy from advanced nuclear plants and renewables. Even without carbon taxes, Finland, for example, has 90% decarbonized its electrical power production, using large amounts of nuclear plus renewables, and at the same time has the cheapest electrical power rates in Europe (excluding former Communist states). It's not rocket science!

This would probably even happen anyway, but a carbon tax appropriately pricing externalities would do the trick in no time. The harder part of solving climate change will be getting people off eating meat and dairy products, or at least drastically reducing it. Unlike ending fossil fuels, that is not something which will happen all by itself.

I agree with a carbon tax, but it seems like an "anti-capitalist and anti-libertarian solution," which appears to be DOA for the Republican half of the US.

[Mike OReilly]

The politics of AGW are purely concocted in the USA and to a lesser extent in Canada. Through the 1980s and 1990s there was broad agreement across all political lines regarding the issue, and that included taking serious actions. All this changed when large financial and corporate interests focused their intense lobbying powers to co-opt one side of the political aisle; in this case the Republican Party.

Once that effort took root, the issue of AGW became sacralized as a tribal belief. It became a defining issue for tribal identity -- on BOTH sides. This effectively stymied any political efforts at compromise on the issue.

The thing to stress is that this is a wholly artificial divide. There is nothing inherently left or right about an issue like climate change. And despite the rhetoric, economic policies from both the Democrats and the Republicans really aren't very different.

Trends in younger party members do indeed show this artificial political divide is breaking down. Young people across the aisle report strong agreement that AGW is real, is serious, and needs addressing now. And with corporate power now shifting dramatically away from obstructionism and towards finding effective solutions, it's inevitable the issue will once again shift back to towards a non-partisan concern.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

The politics of AGW are purely concocted in the USA and to a lesser extent in Canada. Through the 1980s and 1990s there was broad agreement across all political lines regarding the issue, and that included taking serious actions. All this changed when large financial and corporate interests focused their intense lobbying powers to co-opt one side of the political aisle; in this case the Republican Party.

Once that effort took root, the issue of AGW became sacralized as a tribal belief. It became a defining issue for tribal identity -- on BOTH sides. This effectively stymied any political efforts at compromise on the issue.

The thing to stress is that this is a wholly artificial divide. There is nothing inherently left or right about an issue like climate change. And despite the rhetoric, economic policies from both the Democrats and the Republicans really aren't very different.

Trends in younger party members do indeed show this artificial political divide is breaking down. Young people across the aisle report strong agreement that AGW is real, is serious, and needs addressing now. And with corporate power now shifting dramatically away from obstructionism and towards finding effective solutions, it's inevitable the issue will once again shift back to towards a non-partisan concern.

Bingo. Exactly. Mike put his finger right on it.



From the cited article:


"Another poll, carried out last autumn by the Conservation Coalition and the Conservative Energy Network, showed that 82 percent of Republicans aged 18 to 54 said they supported the government taking steps to reduce emissions of gases such as carbon dioxide and methane emissions. Furthermore, 85 percent of the demographic said they would be more likely to back candidates who embrace innovation-based approaches to addressing climate change.
"Danielle Butcher, executive vice president of the American Conservation Coalition, an organization founded by young conservatives in 2017, told Newsweek that even older Republicans aren't necessarily opposed to addressing climate change. Butcher said their concerns with addressing environmental issues are often related more to the solutions being proposed." [Just like Gord said.]

[geoleo]

All Republicans I know and all Republicans I know of in Congress are very strongly against the Green New deal and Bidens so-called Infrastructure bill. So someone is telling lies. Could it be that Bidens Infrastructure Bill is more of a Socialist wish list that is a fraud since it is only 11% about "infrastructure"?

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Bingo. Exactly. Mike put his finger right on it.



From the cited article:


"Another poll, carried out last autumn by the Conservation Coalition and the Conservative Energy Network, showed that 82 percent of Republicans aged 18 to 54 said they supported the government taking steps to reduce emissions of gases such as carbon dioxide and methane emissions. Furthermore, 85 percent of the demographic said they would be more likely to back candidates who embrace innovation-based approaches to addressing climate change.
"Danielle Butcher, executive vice president of the American Conservation Coalition, an organization founded by young conservatives in 2017, told Newsweek that even older Republicans aren't necessarily opposed to addressing climate change. Butcher said their concerns with addressing environmental issues are often related more to the solutions being proposed." [Just like Gord said.]

Tell us about the great success of Obamas "Solyndra" solar panel fraud disaster---please.

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

The politics of AGW are purely concocted in the USA and to a lesser extent in Canada. Through the 1980s and 1990s there was broad agreement across all political lines regarding the issue, and that included taking serious actions. All this changed when large financial and corporate interests focused their intense lobbying powers to co-opt one side of the political aisle; in this case the Republican Party.

Once that effort took root, the issue of AGW became sacralized as a tribal belief. It became a defining issue for tribal identity -- on BOTH sides. This effectively stymied any political efforts at compromise on the issue.

The thing to stress is that this is a wholly artificial divide. There is nothing inherently left or right about an issue like climate change. And despite the rhetoric, economic policies from both the Democrats and the Republicans really aren't very different.

Trends in younger party members do indeed show this artificial political divide is breaking down. Young people across the aisle report strong agreement that AGW is real, is serious, and needs addressing now. And with corporate power now shifting dramatically away from obstructionism and towards finding effective solutions, it's inevitable the issue will once again shift back to towards a non-partisan concern.

It is true that AGW beame and remains a leftist religion that is very useful for virtue signaling. Except in Communist China naturally.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by SailOar

. . . For those interested, here is The Green New Deal resolution. . .Seems to me a bit pie-in-the-skyish, but has lots of commendable aspirations. . .

You could say the same thing about the Communist Manifesto in 1917 -- "bit pie-in-the-skyish; commendable aspirations" (I think I had teachers who said that to me when I was in school). But anyone who understood the real implications of it, knew that it would inevitably lead to GULAGs and mass oppression and mass poverty. Chasing "pie in the sky" is probably the most dangerous thing governments can do.


The GND calls for decarbonizing the economy (including not only eliminating fossil fuels by decree but rebuilding all the buildings in the U.S. over 10 years (!) and complete overhaul of transportation sector) with an unprecedented (or at least unprecedented since the Bol'sheviks, but even they didn't transform Russia in 10 years) expansion of the role of government in the economy, funded by unlimited printing of money (expansion of the money supply). The Bol'sheviks believed that economic problems could be solved in one stroke by confiscating the wealth of the bourgeoisie (not just the wealthy) and investing it into a massive state-run industrialization program; the GND has a similarly naive belief that we can just print the money to do the same kind of massive state-run transformation of the economy without any consequences.



And the GND includes a slate of radical changes unrelated to climate -- provide universal health care at a stroke (something I'm in favor of, but it can't be done like this), providing universal free education (ditto), guaranteeing full employment, maybe a unicorn in everyone's back yard . . .



Supporters of the GND are adamant that there should be no market mechanisms included and no nuclear power:


"On January 10, 2019, a letter signed by 626 organizations in support of a Green New Deal was sent to all members of Congress. It called for measures such as "an expansion of the Clean Air Act; a ban on crude oil exports; an end to fossil fuel subsidies and fossil fuel leasing; and a phase-out of all gasoline-powered vehicles by 2040."[93][94]
The letter also indicated that signatories would "vigorously oppose" ... "market-based mechanisms and technology options such as carbon and emissions trading and offsets, carbon capture and storage, nuclear power, waste-to-energy and biomass energy." Cited in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_...eal_Resolution. No nuclear power? No carbon taxes?


This reveals the motives -- this is not about climate change at all, or at least not primarily. It is the means of massive government action which appeals to many if not most of the supporters. The climate, the crisis, is just the excuse.





It's easy to have "aspirations". Most people probably agree with most of the aspirations behind this -- who doesn't want the end of climate change, health care and education for all, jobs for all. But it is the worst kind of folly to think that just wanting something is the important part of it. The important part of it is HOW do you do it. Just print a few hundred trillion dollars -- no biggie. Just confiscate everything of the bourgeoisie (i.e. from lower middle class up -- the 1917 solution). "Oh how cute and naive" -- someone who doesn't fully buy into that might say. But this kind of reckless naivity always ends in either nothing happening, or worse, in tragedy. The main thing in solving these problems is hard work and smart practical solutions, all of which is totally absent in the GND. The Scandinavians have mostly solved these problems, and their approach was the opposite of this -- building consensus across the whole society, pitching in and paying taxes to solve problems step by step, vigorously supporting entrepreneurship and private enterprise and initiative, working hard every day. We will not find any shortcuts around this, and by floating bombs like the GND, we make permanent the paralyzation of our society through entrenched polarization. I guess the GND is the most foolish political initiative to ever get this far, in the history of the U.S., and that it has set back actually solving climate change by decades.

[geoleo]

HHHMmmmmmmmmmmm- The USA has been exporting record millions of tons of coal- steam coal - to China and India recently (The worlds largest CO2 polluters by far ----why dosent Biden and the GND forbid this??? HHHHHMmmmmmmmmmm

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

This would probably even happen anyway, but a carbon tax appropriately pricing externalities would do the trick in no time. The harder part of solving climate change will be getting people off eating meat and dairy products, or at least drastically reducing it. Unlike ending fossil fuels, that is not something which will happen all by itself.

Posted earlier up thread here it is again.
https://news.yahoo.com/feeding-cows-...180303759.html

But the big question is what does our meat consumption have to do with anything.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by geoleo

Could it be that Bidens Infrastructure Bill is more of a Socialist wish list that is a fraud since it is only 11% about "infrastructure"?

Could it be that Biden is delivering on the infrastructure projects that Trump repeatedly promised, but failed to deliver on?

Tell us about the great success of Obamas "Solyndra" solar panel fraud disaster---please.

Happy to. Solyndra commited fraud. And the program from which Solyndra fraudulently obtained funds, still turned a net profit for the US government (... that means they got more back than they invested. you're welcome)

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

The politics of AGW are purely concocted in the USA and to a lesser extent in Canada. Through the 1980s and 1990s there was broad agreement across all political lines regarding the issue, and that included taking serious actions. All this changed when large financial and corporate interests focused their intense lobbying powers to co-opt one side of the political aisle; in this case the Republican Party.

Once that effort took root, the issue of AGW became sacralized as a tribal belief. It became a defining issue for tribal identity -- on BOTH sides. This effectively stymied any political efforts at compromise on the issue.

One would assume that "large financial and corporate interests focused their intense lobbying powers" towards influencing governments in Europe as well, but, apparently, with less success. Why has Europe been less influenced by corporate interests than has the US? And why have people belonging to the Republican Party been more susceptible to their message than have people belonging to the Democratic Party?

[geoleo]

Where did the phrase "wooly headed professor" originate?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Could it be that Biden is delivering on the infrastructure projects that Trump repeatedly promised, but failed to deliver on?


Happy to. Solyndra commited fraud. And the program from which Solyndra fraudulently obtained funds, still turned a net profit for the US government (... that means they got more back than they invested. you're welcome)

Have you actually read the proposed infrastructure bill?
It has naught to do with actual infrastructure improvement .

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Could it be that Biden is delivering on the infrastructure projects that Trump repeatedly promised, but failed to deliver on?


Happy to. Solyndra commited fraud. And the program from which Solyndra fraudulently obtained funds, still turned a net profit for the US government (... that means they got more back than they invested. you're welcome)

AP and Wikipedia say SOLYNDRA and its fraud cost US taxpayers $875 million dollars --so where is that profit????? State of California also lost $25 million. Sources please.