That Global Warming... (1 Viewer)

[Thorin]

Nice try but the amount of money made on global warming doesnt even come close to the profits made from fossil fuels. When it comes to money and power, oil industry >>>>>>>>> global warming industry.

Fossil fuels are a tangible asset that I can hold in my hand / fuel tank. They make our lifestyles possible, I don't see this as a valid comparison.

 

[Jonesy77]

It's Pascal's wager

If global warming is largely caused by people and we do something about it then we've saved ourselves considerable grief

If global warming is not caused by people and we do something about it then it's largely irrelevant, things are going to get bad

If global warming is caused by people and we don't do something about it then our "savings" are completely irrelevant at the cost of climate change

If global warming is not caused by people and we don't do something about it then our savings are still as irrelevant as before

There's only one "winning" solution in the above word problem. It's not a very hard decision to make (in my mind).

What about:

IF there is no global warming AND we do nothing about it, THEN we've saved a lot of effort and cost.

 

[mister pc]

Carbon credit? What the hell IS a carbon credit????

I agree completely that oil is big business and noone will deny or argue that.. however I would think that the cost vs. gain on this global warming crap ain't too bad. Atleast with big oil there are refineries and the whole refining process involved.

What does it take to make a "carbon credit" or to conduct a pointless survey that costs 100s of thousands of dollars or even millions?

As I understand it, when you pay for a "carbon credit" you are paying to create energy from renewable sources. For example if my household uses 9,000 kilowatts of energy a year, I would purchase 9,000 kilowatts of renewable energy (solar power, etc), and the theory is that this offsets my consumption of fossil fuels. Purchasing a carbon credit is not the same as using renewable energy, but its kind of a compromise.

The reason I brought up big oil in this discussion is because most of the studies that refute global warming are bankrolled by oil companies. Most of the articles I've read that deny the science behind global warming are written by authors and think tanks that have received large sums of money from the oil industry. Exxon Mobil earned a US record of $39.5 billion in profits last year. Chevron also reaped $18.8 billion in profits last year alone. You can believe they are using some of those profits to protect their investment. If people get concerned about global warming and use less fossil fuels, profits will go down for the oil companies. Compile all of the money the United States has ever has spent on global warming related studies, I seriously doubt it would come close to the amount of money that the oil companies makes in a single year. Thats why I always chuckle when people talk about global warming being all about the money.

 

[porculator]

What about:

IF there is no global warming AND we do nothing about it, THEN we've saved a lot of effort and cost.

Who has claimed that? Everyone knows the earth is in a warming cycle, people just need to know who to blame. (Answer: you blame the people who already have different political views than you because its easier and a bunch of other sheep already have your back)

 

[keepoursaints]

As I understand it, when you pay for a "carbon credit" you are paying to create energy from renewable sources. For example if my household uses 9,000 kilowatts of energy a year, I would purchase 9,000 kilowatts of renewable energy (solar power, etc), and the theory is that this offsets my consumption of fossil fuels. Purchasing a carbon credit is not the same as using renewable energy, but its kind of a compromise.

The reason I brought up big oil in this discussion is because most of the studies that refute global warming are bankrolled by oil companies. Most of the articles I've read that deny the science behind global warming are written by authors and think tanks that have received large sums of money from the oil industry. Exxon Mobil earned a US record of $39.5 billion in profits last year. Chevron also reaped $18.8 billion in profits last year alone. You can believe they are using some of those profits to protect their investment. If you were to compile all of the money the United States has ever has spent on global warming related studies, I seriously doubt it would come close to the amount of money that the oil companies makes in a single year. Thats why I always chuckle when people talk about global warming being all about the money.

Oh I agree with you.. we're screwed either way because some people with way too much money already are going to be lining their pockets one way or another.

 

[LSSpam]

Carbon credit? What the hell IS a carbon credit????

I agree completely that oil is big business and noone will deny or argue that.. however I would think that the cost vs. gain on this global warming crap ain't too bad. Atleast with big oil there are refineries and the whole refining process involved.

What does it take to make a "carbon credit" or to conduct a pointless survey that costs 100s of thousands of dollars or even millions?

That's not the only way to address the issue.

Well first off, the majority of the money sunk into oil goes outside of this country. Often into other countries like Iran, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia. So the "profitability" of the oil industry is, at best, a very mixed bag. But that aside...


Just working off the top of my head, some measures that would greatly improve America's environmental standing

*A serious attempt at an alternative fuel for vehicles

*A move away from fossil fuels for energy production, likely, primarily, nuclear and wind

*Incentives/credits for housing efficiency, like solar panel water heaters, energy efficient windows, etc

*Trade restrictions/tariffs on any country whose environmental standards don't meet, or aren't moving to meet the standards we hold our industries too

*Restrictions/bans on timber and fishing products that don't meet our own self-imposed guidelines for sustainability

*"Landfill" taxes on difficult to dispose of or space-consuming products

The thing is, most of these items are in our best interest anyways. Dependency on foreign oil is a national security issue at this stage and a big player in the current recession. While we get most of our coal domestically, there's no doubt "coal" is a hard, inefficient, dirty, and not very productive way to produce energy. Nuclear and Wind power are cheaper (long-term), more efficient, and provide higher quality jobs.

Tax credits are an incentive structure for people to make their houses more efficient, which is beneficial to them in the long-run anyways. I replaced my 30+ year old windows a few months back and had my bill drop close to 20%, despite wattage costs going up in that same time period. The windows haven't paid for themselves yet, but they're well on their way. A credit might put people who are only marginally in a position to do such an upgrade in a better position.

Even though I'm generally a free trade proponent, it's ridiculous to expect our industries to obey strict environmental standards and then import products at a lower cost from the likes of China where no such standards exists. This is as much about "fair" trade as it is the environment, and may help prevent the outsourcing of jobs as many heavy industries that we are losing are more efficient and more "green" here.

We've also got the best timber and fishery management in the world (no exaggeration here) considering we actually sustain ourselves there. It's reprehensible that nations like Japan restrict their timber and fisheries so much ...only to go log in horribly unsustainable ways in Indonesia or over fish fisheries overseas.

Anyways this is not very well thought out, just off the top of my head. Point is there are a lot of ways for us to address this issue, largely unilaterally, in our best interests, and in a manner that'll have real impact.

But it requires thinking of the issue in problematic, not political, terms. As in "how do we solve this problem?"

 

[LSSpam]

What about:

IF there is no global warming AND we do nothing about it, THEN we've saved a lot of effort and cost.

Different variable. You're assuming "global warming" isn't a relatively safe assumption at this point. That's dubious at best.

But even taking that variable into effect, the consequences of there being global warming, us being able to affect it, and not, far outweigh the consequences of there not being global warming, us addressing it, and ending up with cleaner, more efficient industries as the "consequence"

 

[keepoursaints]

That's not the only way to address the issue.

Well first off, the majority of the money sunk into oil goes outside of this country. Often into other countries like Iran, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia. So the "profitability" of the oil industry is, at best, a very mixed bag. But that aside...


Just working off the top of my head, some measures that would greatly improve America's environmental standing

*A serious attempt at an alternative fuel for vehicles

*A move away from fossil fuels for energy production, likely, primarily, nuclear and wind

*Incentives/credits for housing efficiency, like solar panel water heaters, energy efficient windows, etc

*Trade restrictions/tariffs on any country whose environmental standards don't meet, or aren't moving to meet the standards we hold our industries too

*Restrictions/bans on timber and fishing products that don't meet our own self-imposed guidelines for sustainability

*"Landfill" taxes on difficult to dispose of or space-consuming products

The thing is, most of these items are in our best interest anyways. Dependency on foreign oil is a national security issue at this stage and a big player in the current recession. While we get most of our coal domestically, there's no doubt "coal" is a hard, inefficient, dirty, and not very productive way to produce energy. Nuclear and Wind power are cheaper (long-term), more efficient, and provide higher quality jobs.

Tax credits are an incentive structure for people to make their houses more efficient, which is beneficial to them in the long-run anyways. I replaced my 30+ year old windows a few months back and had my bill drop close to 20%, despite wattage costs going up in that same time period. The windows haven't paid for themselves yet, but they're well on their way. A credit might put people who are only marginally in a position to do such an upgrade in a better position.

Even though I'm generally a free trade proponent, it's ridiculous to expect our industries to obey strict environmental standards and then import products at a lower cost from the likes of China where no such standards exists. This is as much about "fair" trade as it is the environment, and may help prevent the outsourcing of jobs as many heavy industries that we are losing are more efficient and more "green" here.

We've also got the best timber and fishery management in the world (no exaggeration here) considering we actually sustain ourselves there. It's reprehensible that nations like Japan restrict their timber and fisheries so much ...only to go log in horribly unsustainable ways in Indonesia or over fish fisheries overseas.

Anyways this is not very well thought out, just off the top of my head. Point is there are a lot of ways for us to address this issue, largely unilaterally, in our best interests, and in a manner that'll have real impact.

But it requires thinking of the issue in problematic, not political, terms. As in "how do we solve this problem?"

Great post. I hope I didn't come across as siding with big oil and against better measures for energy, especially fuel because if I did that was my poor wording. I absolutely think something must be done, I just don't the fear mongering to make it happen, but honestly if that's the only way I can live with that.

There are few things I hate more than gas prices going up and mileage per gallon going down or not really improving all the while we're so freakin' dependent on FOREIGN oil.

Those were all excellent suggestions you made.

 

[DadsDream]

Thats why I always chuckle when people talk about global warming being all about the money.

Don't discount the desires of the government agencies involved, who use the topic to push for budget increases, mister pc.

It's a highly calculating, high stakes game for a slice of the federal budget pie. Don't ever think it's not.

 

[Sandman]

Count me in the group that doesn't believe global warming is man made. With that said, I would love to see us go toward hydrogen fuel for our cars. It would reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and it would reduce emissions (hydrogen fuel emits water vapor). To me this is a win-win, and I wonder why we aren't trying harder to make this a reality. I read somewhere that the government put $2 billion into researching how to make hydrogen fuel work. In my opinion, this is not enough. This is exactly the sort of thing that the government should spend money on. Let's put $100 billion into this and make it work. We were able to put a man on the moon within a decade of making the commitment to do so back in the 1960s. Surely, we could do the same with hydrogen cars. If "global warming" is the catalyst to make this happen, I'm okay with that.

 

[LSSpam]

Count me in the group that doesn't believe global warming is man made. With that said, I would love to see us go toward hydrogen fuel for our cars. It would reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and it would reduce emissions (hydrogen fuel emits water vapor). To me this is a win-win, and I wonder why we aren't trying harder to make this a reality. I read somewhere that the government put $2 billion into researching how to make hydrogen fuel work. In my opinion, this is not enough. This is exactly the sort of thing that the government should spend money on. Let's put $100 billion into this and make it work. We were able to put a man on the moon within a decade of making the commitment to do so back in the 1960s. Surely, we could do the same with hydrogen cars. If "global warming" is the catalyst to make this happen, I'm okay with that.

The thing is, such a "Manhattan/Apollo" type program would have seriously positive effects beyond, of course, the alternative fuel itself. Both the Manhattan project and the Apollo program sent ripples through our economy in the form of a variety of technology developed in their process that became available first to American companies and that we exploited. Also the ability to cut "Big Oil" off at the knees would give us incredible leverage from a world politics standpoint.

 

[mister pc]

*Incentives/credits for housing efficiency, like solar panel water heaters, energy efficient windows, etc

Why not extended this to automobiles as well? Currently I believe it costs around $3,000 extra to get a hybrid model, compared to the non-hybrid model. Why not create a tax credit to cover the price differential between hybrid and non-hybrid models? That way people can still buy a non-hybrid model car if they choose, or they can get a more efficient car for the same price. With gas growing more expensive by the day, I think many people would opt for hybrid models if the prices were equal.

 

[keepoursaints]

Count me in the group that doesn't believe global warming is man made. With that said, I would love to see us go toward hydrogen fuel for our cars. It would reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and it would reduce emissions (hydrogen fuel emits water vapor). To me this is a win-win, and I wonder why we aren't trying harder to make this a reality. I read somewhere that the government put $2 billion into researching how to make hydrogen fuel work. In my opinion, this is not enough. This is exactly the sort of thing that the government should spend money on. Let's put $100 billion into this and make it work. We were able to put a man on the moon within a decade of making the commitment to do so back in the 1960s. Surely, we could do the same with hydrogen cars. If "global warming" is the catalyst to make this happen, I'm okay with that.

lus-un2:

My sentiments exactly... minus the cape, mask and hat.

 

[LSSpam]

Why not extended this to automobiles as well? Currently I believe it costs around $3,000 extra to get a hybrid model, compared to the non-hybrid model. Why not create a tax credit to cover the price differential between hybrid and non-hybrid models? That way people can still buy a non-hybrid model car if they choose, or they can get a more efficient car for the same price. With gas growing more expensive by the day, I think many people would opt for hybrid models if the prices were equal.

Well the core idea is to phase out fossil fuels entirely, but sure, in the interim that'd be a good idea. Also raising CAFE standards as well.

 

[keepoursaints]

Why not extended this to automobiles as well? Currently I believe it costs around $3,000 extra to get a hybrid model, compared to the non-hybrid model. Why not create a tax credit to cover the price differential between hybrid and non-hybrid models? That way people can still buy a non-hybrid model car if they choose, or they can get a more efficient car for the same price. With gas growing more expensive by the day, I think many people would opt for hybrid models if the prices were equal.

Very good idea. I'm just glad they've finally started making hybrid vehicles look normal.

Now if they could come out with one of those 100mpg + cars that didn't look like some alien spacecraft reject they'd sell a ton of those as well.