My issue is that the likes of DiCaprio et al have the means to go carbon neutral at home. Leo could spend 1% of his net worth on making his homes heated and cooled with geothermal, and powered by solar and wind. And that 1% is assuming his place would cost 50 times what my house would cost. (I have looked it up.)
If he did that, then flew around everywhere telling people to go green, at least I could respect that he had done part of what he is proposing.
And if enough high profile people would do that, it would certainly bring the costs down. Especially solar- where everybody seems to be waiting for the next price reduction.
Apparently he has gone "carbon neutral" through this initiative
In any event, I get the psychological satisfaction lashing out at such critics, especially when it's our town's industry that's challenged. But the whole hypocrite line is so tired. Time to retire it, move on.
__________________
Trust the snake.
The Following User Says Thank You to Bunk For This Useful Post:
Because the fact of the matter is that carbon emissions aren't a problem of the oil industry, they're a problem of the access to cheap energy that we all take advantage of to lead a comfortable life. Oil companies aren't the problem. The massive demand for energy is the problem. So it's the height of hypocrisy for those who are among the most gluttonous users of energy to scold and vilify the people who provide that energy. It's like a morbidly obese guy denouncing farmers for the obesity crisis and the strains it puts on the health care system.
Came here to say exactly this. DiCaprio's hypocrisy on this doesn't change the reality of where scientists think this is heading, but it's endemic of why this problem won't be solved; people are unwilling to live below their carbon means. He could've just flown to Brazil, but instead he sailed a mega-yacht. The average Calgarian could drive to Kelowna for a vacation, instead they fly the whole family to Florida. He's the epitome of why the system he's ragging against is still functioning.
This is borderline masturbatory on DiCaprio's part to make this doc. He does it to make himself feel good, he doesn't actually give a flip about carbon staying in the ground, as clearly demonstrated by his lifestyle. Or he might care about carbon staying in the ground, but only YOUR carbon staying in the ground. And of course that's the attitude most people take, regardless of where they stand in regard to climate change.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DiracSpike For This Useful Post:
I'm willing to bet that most people would change their ways (including Herr Leo) if there were a viable alternative that allowed them to maintain an excellent standard of living at low economic pain and high convenience factor. The problem is that there really isn't that alternative available widely today. Fossil fuels are TOO good at what they offer, it's going to take a lot to displace them - or we will ultimately have to "pay the piper" and be forced to adapt with the planet as it changes like every other species and ecosystem will. That might not look pretty, and we might not survive it.
People who point to China being the problem don't understand that they're responsible for about 7% of the cumulative contribution to man made GHG in the atmosphere today. US is about 30% and the EU is about 29% (mostly through the UK leading first wave industrialization). Canada is about 2% of the cumulative contribution, FWIW.
Yes China's contribution rate today is high, but they're doing WAY more than any other nation to actually fix the problem. They're also doing this not just for climate, but to prevent the deaths of millions annually from particulate matter in their air. They're doing it because I think they understand very well that economies with the lowest cost energy base is in a position of great advantage in a deeply connected world. They are inappropriately vilified, they are among the most rational actors.
I also notice a lot of people who like to say Canada and Canadians shouldn't care because we aren't a big contributor. Well, you're voting on missing out on one of the greatest economic opportunities ever presented in peacetime in our collective history. We have an unbelievably unique mix of resources, climate, legal stability, education and reputation - things that should be leveraged into solutions for this problem, to enable doing something about it and being rewarded handsomely.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff
If the NHL ever needs an enema, Edmonton is where they'll insert it.
The Following 24 Users Say Thank You to SeeGeeWhy For This Useful Post:
AltaGuy has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him. He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: At le pub...
Exp:
I request the ability to thank SeeGeeWhy's post twice.
I'm willing to bet that most people would change their ways (including Herr Leo) if there were a viable alternative that allowed them to maintain an excellent standard of living at low economic pain and high convenience factor. The problem is that there really isn't that alternative available widely today. Fossil fuels are TOO good at what they offer, it's going to take a lot to displace them - or we will ultimately have to "pay the piper" and be forced to adapt with the planet as it changes like every other species and ecosystem will. That might not look pretty, and we might not survive it.
People who point to China being the problem don't understand that they're responsible for about 7% of the cumulative contribution to man made GHG in the atmosphere today. US is about 30% and the EU is about 29% (mostly through the UK leading first wave industrialization). Canada is about 2% of the cumulative contribution, FWIW.
Yes China's contribution rate today is high, but they're doing WAY more than any other nation to actually fix the problem. They're also doing this not just for climate, but to prevent the deaths of millions annually from particulate matter in their air. They're doing it because I think they understand very well that economies with the lowest cost energy base is in a position of great advantage in a deeply connected world. They are inappropriately vilified, they are among the most rational actors.
I also notice a lot of people who like to say Canada and Canadians shouldn't care because we aren't a big contributor. Well, you're voting on missing out on one of the greatest economic opportunities ever presented in peacetime in our collective history. We have an unbelievably unique mix of resources, climate, legal stability, education and reputation - things that should be leveraged into solutions for this problem, to enable doing something about it and being rewarded handsomely.
I'm willing to bet that most people would change their ways (including Herr Leo) if there were a viable alternative that allowed them to maintain an excellent standard of living at low economic pain and high convenience factor. The problem is that there really isn't that alternative available widely today. Fossil fuels are TOO good at what they offer, it's going to take a lot to displace them - or we will ultimately have to "pay the piper" and be forced to adapt with the planet as it changes like every other species and ecosystem will. That might not look pretty, and we might not survive it.
People who point to China being the problem don't understand that they're responsible for about 7% of the cumulative contribution to man made GHG in the atmosphere today. US is about 30% and the EU is about 29% (mostly through the UK leading first wave industrialization). Canada is about 2% of the cumulative contribution, FWIW.
Yes China's contribution rate today is high, but they're doing WAY more than any other nation to actually fix the problem. They're also doing this not just for climate, but to prevent the deaths of millions annually from particulate matter in their air. They're doing it because I think they understand very well that economies with the lowest cost energy base is in a position of great advantage in a deeply connected world. They are inappropriately vilified, they are among the most rational actors.
I also notice a lot of people who like to say Canada and Canadians shouldn't care because we aren't a big contributor. Well, you're voting on missing out on one of the greatest economic opportunities ever presented in peacetime in our collective history. We have an unbelievably unique mix of resources, climate, legal stability, education and reputation - things that should be leveraged into solutions for this problem, to enable doing something about it and being rewarded handsomely.
Incredible post, great to read. The only nitpick is I don't really see Canadians saying we shouldn't care or worry about our contribution due to only being 2% as much as taking exception to the fact that we're a huge target and having our country's economy severely threatened due to this 2% in a US led attack to protect their economy.
Especially when the country causing this misdirection is responsible for 30%. It confuses me that there isn't more anger by those hammering on the need for immediate change (I'm on board with that for sure) directed towards the US for this.
Even if people think Albertans are just being silly about it shouldn't they at least really care about the US not taking this seriously? If the US actually did make the decision to suck it up and start actually doing something that would be the biggest win this earth could hope for.
I'm willing to bet that most people would change their ways (including Herr Leo) if there were a viable alternative that allowed them to maintain an excellent standard of living at low economic pain and high convenience factor. The problem is that there really isn't that alternative available widely today. Fossil fuels are TOO good at what they offer, it's going to take a lot to displace them - or we will ultimately have to "pay the piper" and be forced to adapt with the planet as it changes like every other species and ecosystem will. That might not look pretty, and we might not survive it.
People who point to China being the problem don't understand that they're responsible for about 7% of the cumulative contribution to man made GHG in the atmosphere today. US is about 30% and the EU is about 29% (mostly through the UK leading first wave industrialization). Canada is about 2% of the cumulative contribution, FWIW.
Yes China's contribution rate today is high, but they're doing WAY more than any other nation to actually fix the problem. They're also doing this not just for climate, but to prevent the deaths of millions annually from particulate matter in their air. They're doing it because I think they understand very well that economies with the lowest cost energy base is in a position of great advantage in a deeply connected world. They are inappropriately vilified, they are among the most rational actors.
I also notice a lot of people who like to say Canada and Canadians shouldn't care because we aren't a big contributor. Well, you're voting on missing out on one of the greatest economic opportunities ever presented in peacetime in our collective history. We have an unbelievably unique mix of resources, climate, legal stability, education and reputation - things that should be leveraged into solutions for this problem, to enable doing something about it and being rewarded handsomely.
I also notice a lot of people who like to say Canada and Canadians shouldn't care because we aren't a big contributor. Well, you're voting on missing out on one of the greatest economic opportunities ever presented in peacetime in our collective history. We have an unbelievably unique mix of resources, climate, legal stability, education and reputation - things that should be leveraged into solutions for this problem, to enable doing something about it and being rewarded handsomely.
Can you expand on this, I am not seeing how we get rewarded. Other than the feel good moral/global diplomacy benefit of reducing CO2 emissions what is the opportunity? Power prices go up with premature power plant retirements, carbon taxes make everything more expensive. It makes no sense that we shoot ourselves in the feet and go out of our way to make ourselves even less competitive by going out of our way to drive up our economies major input costs.
Air quality is a different topic entirely, we aren't killing millions of our people annually with smog, our air is clean. Darn rights China should be reducing so they quit killing their main resource and source of competitive advantage (their people). You can argue their reductions are purely economic.
Can you expand on this, I am not seeing how we get rewarded. Other than the feel good moral/global diplomacy benefit of reducing CO2 emissions what is the opportunity? Power prices go up with premature power plant retirements, carbon taxes make everything more expensive. It makes no sense that we shoot ourselves in the feet and go out of our way to make ourselves even less competitive by going out of our way to drive up our economies major input costs.
Air quality is a different topic entirely, we aren't killing millions of our people annually with smog, our air is clean. Darn rights China should be reducing so they quit killing their main resource and source of competitive advantage (their people). You can argue their reductions are purely economic.
Do you think it was advantageous for the British economy to embrace the Steam Engine, or would they have been better off sticking with the horse and buggy?
Do you think it was advantageous for the British economy to embrace the Steam Engine, or would they have been better off sticking with the horse and buggy?
The extreme environmentalists would have picked the horse and cheap human labor, much in the way they advocate for closing nuclear plants and hydro today, or think poor villages in Africa and other developing nations should be happy with the little amount of energy produce by a small number of solar panels, rather than centralized electricity generation.
The extreme environmentalists would have picked the horse and cheap human labor, much in the way they advocate for closing nuclear plants and hydro today, or think poor villages in Africa and other developing nations should be happy with the little amount of energy produce by a small number of solar panels, rather than centralized electricity generation.
Congratulations then, you seem to be on the side of the extreme environmentalists.
The extreme environmentalists would have picked the horse and cheap human labor, much in the way they advocate for closing nuclear plants and hydro today, or think poor villages in Africa and other developing nations should be happy with the little amount of energy produce by a small number of solar panels, rather than centralized electricity generation.
Or... we can use our almost limitless ingenuity potential to make renewable energy sources the centralized energy generation method.
Can't flip the switch tomorrow, but that doesn't mean this is impossible. It's probably a lot closer than most people think if there was some global mandate to get it done.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to Coach For This Useful Post:
Can't flip the switch tomorrow, but that doesn't mean this is impossible. It's probably a lot closer than most people think if there was some global mandate to get it done.
It's actually much farther away than most people think, simply due to the extreme difficulty in storing electricity necessary to support unreliable renewables like solar and wind if hydro is not available like in most areas. In the end what happens is you also need a separate electricity generation fleet made of up reliable generators, like nuclear, coal, natural gas or hydro that's able to meet peak demand by itself. Even the richest countries like Germany can't even afford it.
And electricity is only a lesser portion of world energy usage.
Last edited by accord1999; 11-02-2016 at 01:00 PM.
It's actually much farther away than most people think, simply due to the extreme difficulty in storing electricity necessary to support unreliable renewables like solar and wind if hydro is not available like in most areas. In the end what happens is you also need a separate electricity generation fleet made of up reliable generators, like nuclear, coal, natural gas or hydro that's able to meet peak demand by itself. Even the richest countries like Germany can't even afford it.
And electricity is only a lesser portion of world energy usage.
These are problems that can be changed. Calling it difficult doesn't mean it can't be done and done quickly (relatively).
If we had been working with this technology as serously as we have with oil for the last 100 years, it'd probably be done already. If humanity focused much of it's scientific efforts to solving this problem, IMO, it would blow people's minds how fast it happens.
Lets stop making a new iPhone every 6 months and get some of those folks working on real problems. And yes, that would go against many corporations interests and the idea of profit in general. If we can't get past that, we're already screwed IMO.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to Coach For This Useful Post:
Energy and energy storage have been problems that have concerned humanity since the dawn of civilization. The problem of storing electricity is a physics problem, not from a lack of money or effort. Despite all efforts, nothing beats a hydro dam for storing electricity.
Location: Close enough to make a beer run during a TV timeout
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by accord1999
Energy and energy storage have been problems that have concerned humanity since the dawn of civilization. The problem of storing electricity is a physics problem, not from a lack of money or effort. Despite all efforts, nothing beats a hydro dam for storing electricity.
And that is another thing we have to decide on what is more important, going green or having nice things to look at. As an example, why not dam Elbow falls. You would take away something pretty to look at, but have enough power for probably 1000 homes.
That won't happen, because it would make a .001% difference in worldwide CO2 at the cost of something pretty. However if every jurisdiction were to make sacrifices like this, the impact would be huge. That is my issue with DiCaprio not doing anything personally (aside from the giving money to a tree planting organization- which may or may not result in more trees being planted.) If he were to make his house uglier by adding solar panels, and then challenged everybody else to also spend 1% of their worth, that would be a measurable difference.
And that is another thing we have to decide on what is more important, going green or having nice things to look at. As an example, why not dam Elbow falls. You would take away something pretty to look at, but have enough power for probably 1000 homes.
That won't happen, because it would make a .001% difference in worldwide CO2 at the cost of something pretty. However if every jurisdiction were to make sacrifices like this, the impact would be huge. That is my issue with DiCaprio not doing anything personally (aside from the giving money to a tree planting organization- which may or may not result in more trees being planted.) If he were to make his house uglier by adding solar panels, and then challenged everybody else to also spend 1% of their worth, that would be a measurable difference.
So for fun (and I'm procrastinating), I did some Googling (all numbers are US);
~ average cost to convert a house to solar is $25,000
~ there's about 125,000,000 homes in US
~ total cost to convert all homes would be $3.125T
~ 25% of the US population owns 87% of the wealth in the US which is $54.2T (2009 re; Wikipedia)
Conclusion; If 25% of the American population donated 6% of their wealth all houses could be converted to solar (that doesn't include a volume discount I suspect could be negotiated or design efficiencies )
Quick and dirty, so there may be some mistakes in that.
The Following User Says Thank You to Leeman4Gilmour For This Useful Post:
Energy and energy storage have been problems that have concerned humanity since the dawn of civilization. The problem of storing electricity is a physics problem, not from a lack of money or effort. Despite all efforts, nothing beats a hydro dam for storing electricity.
Getting oil out of the ground was a physics problem too. So was getting an object into orbit. Or onto a different planet. Or a comet. We've done things that would have seemed laughably impossible to people who are in the middle of their lives right now if you told them when they were a kid. This may have been a problem for thousands of years, but our ability to solves problems, and pool knowledge and resources has never been better and continually accelerates.
You can't tell me that if the same effort and funding that went into figuring out drilling deep into the earth, and then sideways, and then cracking large sections of the rock with high pressure liquid, literally squeezing gold out of a rock and some how sucking it back to the surface, could somehow be completely shifted to figuring out how to harness the energy of something that hits our planet every day with more than we could need in a lifetime, that this wouldn't already be done.
The problem is if we figure this out, energy is no longer scarce, and therefore, you can't make money off it (or not much).
__________________
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Coach For This Useful Post:
)