The Environment

Is it like a lesson plan day at school or something? Holy Christ somebody is sucking taxpayer dollars for no return on investment today.

 
teachercd said:
I mean, I like most of your posts but you are wrong.  No one is "denying climate change" we all know the climate will change (it has to) and that the sun will one day die.  We are denying living in fear over it.  You are living in fear over it.

Look at it like this (and before the "That is not a good metaphor" crowd comes in, just know that I don't know what a metaphor or analogy is so it doesn't matter what you say)

You drive, right?  You are super likely to get into a bad or even fatal accident driving, statistically speaking.   We all know this, for the most part the only thing we do about is wear a seatbelt.  We still speed, we still cut people off, we don't always signal, we roll through stops, we do all we can to make it through that yellow light, we check out texts.  Even though WE KNOW something bad could happen.

We are not "Car Accident Deniers" we are normal people that don't live in constant fear.  
Click to expand...
I mean, firstly, I don't live in constant fear. I do think that people on the left - or young people having extreme fear over climate change - is a problem because the effect on people isn't going to lead to the extinction of humanity or anything like that. It's going to cause deaths, sure, but in the form of increased natural disasters which will predominately affect poor people in 3rd world countries who nobody cares about.

Climate change is going to affect life in all kinds of ways - it already has. Increasing insurance rates - making states like Florida increasingly uninsurable - weather patterns changing causing agricultural economies to change, etc. All of these things cost money. The issue we're facing now is that these changes are happening MUCH faster than previously expected and are costing A LOT more money than previously thought. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how I view climate change - it's not the loss of life I worry about; I do not care about people that much. It's the political instability rapidly shifting economics are going to cause.

If you think our politics are toxic now, wait until homeowners insurance premiums increase massively by the end of the decade. And that will be just the start.

 
Dr. Strangelove said:
I mean, firstly, I don't live in constant fear. I do think that people on the left - or young people having extreme fear over climate change - is a problem because the effect on people isn't going to lead to the extinction of humanity or anything like that. It's going to cause deaths, sure, but in the form of increased natural disasters which will predominately affect poor people in 3rd world countries who nobody cares about.

Climate change is going to affect life in all kinds of ways - it already has. Increasing insurance rates - making states like Florida increasingly uninsurable - weather patterns changing causing agricultural economies to change, etc. All of these things cost money. The issue we're facing now is that these changes are happening MUCH faster than previously expected and are costing A LOT more money than previously thought. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how I view climate change - it's not the loss of life I worry about; I do not care about people that much. It's the political instability rapidly shifting economics are going to cause.

If you think our politics are toxic now, wait until homeowners insurance premiums increase massively by the end of the decade. And that will be just the start.
Click to expand...
Okay, you should have started with that!  So you ARE NORMAL!  You don't care about the climate like a Envior-Bro, you care about cash!  

 
DevoHusker said:
The only person finding rage is you, and it's because I don't hold the same position or outlook as you do. This is what I believe. I am in the center.
Click to expand...


Doesn't the vast majority of discussion take place in the center of this diagram? 

Perhaps it's a subset of We Should Take Care of Our Environment, but one might think this diagram deserves a circle Ignoring Climate Change is Dangerous (and Not Hysterical), as that's where a lot of the scientists reside. 

But given the parameters of We Should Take Care of Our Environment, what does a good Libertarian suggest? The words Our Environment are tricky for individualists. 

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
Doesn't the vast majority of discussion take place in the center of this diagram? 

Perhaps it's a subset of We Should Take Care of Our Environment, but one might think this diagram deserves a circle Ignoring Climate Change is Dangerous (and Not Hysterical), as that's where a lot of the scientists reside. 

But given the parameters of We Should Take Care of Our Environment, what does a good Libertarian suggest? The words Our Environment are tricky for individualists. 
Click to expand...
I am not in favor of arbitrary dates, forced conversion, mandated technology, and increased taxes. Solar is great, but a recent hailstorm decimated a large array in Texas. Nuclear options continue to be shuttered. I think there has only been one new one go online since 2015. Lots of new wind turbines, but later disposal is still an issue. EV battery mining is a scourge on the very Earth we want to save. How about disposal options for batteries that weight 1200+ pounds?

I read that the EV mandate by 2030 would manage to cut emissions by .20%. Yes, the decimal is in the correct spot. Will see if I can find it again.

I dont want higher taxes for unproven "solutions". How about we start by cutting the $9 trillion in fossil fuel subsidies, and see what the private market can do with an even playing field. Check out what Norway has figured out about EV mandates.

 
DevoHusker said:
I am not in favor of arbitrary dates, forced conversion, mandated technology, and increased taxes. Solar is great, but a recent hailstorm decimated a large array in Texas. Nuclear options continue to be shuttered. I think there has only been one new one go online since 2015. Lots of new wind turbines, but later disposal is still an issue. EV battery mining is a scourge on the very Earth we want to save. How about disposal options for batteries that weight 1200+ pounds?

I read that the EV mandate by 2030 would manage to cut emissions by .20%. Yes, the decimal is in the correct spot. Will see if I can find it again.

I dont want higher taxes for unproven "solutions". How about we start by cutting the $9 trillion in fossil fuel subsidies, and see what the private market can do with an even playing field. Check out what Norway has figured out about EV mandates.
Click to expand...


Nuclear power is an interesting example. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island definitely had folks pumping the brakes and environmentalists up in arms, but the U.S. continued to be the world leader in nuclear power generation. When the issue became framed as nuclear vs coal and supported by solid evidence, public sentiment shifted --- including the same environmentalists. The Inflation Reduction Act and the CHIPS Act created 30% tax breaks for building new nuke plants, and they finally opened a new one in Georgia. This should mean a green light from all quarters for building more, but the Georgia plant came in way late and way over budget, so they're going to have to get that figured out, along with the waste issues that have always been a problem. The industry wants to move towards some smaller capacity but faster and cheaper nuke plants. 

So yeah, nuclear fits into the low-carbon, energy efficient picture, along with solar and wind and EVs. They all bring fresh and counter-productive problems to the table. Some people forget that, but a lot of people don't. The environmentalists and scientists concerned about global warming are often the same people publicizing the fact that EV batteries introduce profound problems with mining and disposal. That doesn't mean mocking or dismissing EVs, it's just another problem that needs to be solved. The rap sheet on internal combustion engines remains pretty long, too. 

I've worked for a couple entities in the EV world over the last 30 years, and nobody takes government mandates as law because they aren't. Gov. Schwarzenneger enlisted mandates for automakers to reduce emissions by 25% by 2009, and of course nothing came close to that. There's political value to declaring mandates and it does spur some innovation and cooperation, but corporations generally don't do things if they can't find a way to make money on it.  

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
Nuclear power is an interesting example. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island definitely had folks pumping the brakes and environmentalists up in arms, but the U.S. continued to be the world leader in nuclear power generation. When the issue became framed as nuclear vs coal and supported by solid evidence, public sentiment shifted --- including the same environmentalists. The Inflation Reduction Act and the CHIPS Act created 30% tax breaks for building new nuke plants, and they finally opened a new one in Georgia. This should mean a green light from all quarters for building more, but the Georgia plant came in way late and way over budget, so they're going to have to get that figured out, along with the waste issues that have always been a problem. The industry wants to move towards some smaller capacity but faster and cheaper nuke plants. 

So yeah, nuclear fits into the low-carbon, energy efficient picture, along with solar and wind and EVs. They all bring fresh and counter-productive problems to the table. Some people forget that, but a lot of people don't. The environmentalists and scientists concerned about global warming are often the same people publicizing the fact that EV batteries introduce profound problems with mining and disposal. That doesn't mean mocking or dismissing EVs, it's just another problem that needs to be solved. The rap sheet on internal combustion engines remains pretty long, too. 

I've worked for a couple entities in the EV world over the last 30 years, and nobody takes government mandates as law because they aren't. Gov. Schwarzenneger enlisted mandates for automakers to reduce emissions by 25% by 2009, and of course nothing came close to that. There's political value to declaring mandates and it does spur some innovation and cooperation, but corporations generally don't do things if they can't find a way to make money on it.  
Click to expand...


Good info, thanks.

 
DevoHusker said:
EV battery mining is a scourge on the very Earth we want to save.
Click to expand...
And yet coal mining is and was much, much worse, but we've been doing it for over a century. Oil drilling is also extremely harmful as is natural gas drilling and fracking.

The giant advantage battery mining has over those others is that the battery components can be recycled, so the mining needed will become very small over the long term.

DevoHusker said:
I read that the EV mandate by 2030 would manage to cut emissions by .20%. Yes, the decimal is in the correct spot. Will see if I can find it again.
Click to expand...
That's definitely wrong. I'd be interested in where you got that. I think it's close to 20%, so the decimal is probably in the wrong place.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top