So what happens to all those people who lose their jobs overnight? I agree with it as well, but this is where I start accepting the argument of taxes supporting those who work in industries who need massive cutbacks in production. (Not saying the carbon tax in its state was the way to do this. But something similar is important in my opinion).
Why is anyone losing their jobs?
The hysteria around the coal miners losing their jobs was completely overblown and turned into a big political gongshow.
The US is employing more people in the renewables sector than they EVER did in the coal industry. And many of those workers came directly from the coal industry.
The Following User Says Thank You to Azure For This Useful Post:
That amount of coal represents nearly 4 billion tons of coal, or half of the world's production. It's also bigger (in TWh) than the entire US electricity system.
Ouch. Looks like there is no way in hell China can become even close to green anytime soon. Makes the hysteria in this part of the world all the more ridiculous if that's possible.
what do we do about the CO2 when there is a massive forest fire from all these trees?
The United States has more trees now than it has ever had in the history of this planet. With proper forest management it is entirely possible to avoid out of control forest fires that burn down entire areas of young growth trees.
Also, at some point fires are needed because the existing tree life is not sequestering C02, and if those trees aren't being harvested? Well, time to burn and let new ones take their place.
Btw this is that Netflix doc, I highly recommend watching I think its ep3 where they go over the attempts to sell the idea of Nuclear.
Great documentary. Gates is actually a good thinker on the subject and doesn't have his head rooted in the sand like so many of the others at his status level do.
He is also one of the few putting his money into trying to fix the problem. People should pay attention to what he supports because he's been at this for a lot longer than our idiot politicians.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Azure For This Useful Post:
I am not against these sorts of ideas, but those are the types of solutions being offered up now, and that is the problem: targeting individual examples, and thus missing others. It makes for an unlevel playing field, and that is the challenge.
Excessive packaging is as annoying as anything. But where do you start? And who decides what is excessive? And unless all countries are involved equally, it just creates unfair advantages to those not restricted.
Let's go back to the SUV example above: do we try and make people drive smaller vehicles? (who decides who qualifies for an SUV and who doesn't?) Or do we try to reduce the number of oil tankers carrying oil half way around the world?
Again, who decides? Because unless everyone is playing by the same rules, you aren't accomplishing anything, you are just giving economic advantages to those that won't follow the rules.
You exempt all taxation on exports and tax all imports who don’t have compliant programs. Yang’s plan as part of his nomination bid is the first time I have seen this concept mentioned outside of my head. But without it you just penalize yourself.
The hysteria around the coal miners losing their jobs was completely overblown and turned into a big political gongshow.
The US is employing more people in the renewables sector than they EVER did in the coal industry. And many of those workers came directly from the coal industry.
No hysteria. And it isn’t just coal. Even if it was, they are still real people.
Look no further than Alberta for an idea, jobs in the oil industry were lost or people changed career paths. Oil and gas is never going away 100%, but it is going to continue to scale down just as coal and steel has. Automation aside.
It’s necessary, but I want to see solid re-education/work training programs offered along side any major industry shift.
You exempt all taxation on exports and tax all imports who don’t have compliant programs. Yang’s plan as part of his nomination bid is the first time I have seen this concept mentioned outside of my head. But without it you just penalize yourself.
Sure, that helps locally. But unless other countries are playing by the same rules, you're still disadvantaged internationally.
Ouch. Looks like there is no way in hell China can become even close to green anytime soon. Makes the hysteria in this part of the world all the more ridiculous if that's possible.
Why does that make it more ridiculous?
We can’t drive change? We can’t come up with technologies which we can then sell to countries like China? Profit while improving global air quality. The people of China don’t care about their air quality? They won’t also hit a breaking point? The argument of “wait until the biggest culprit blinks” is so frustrating.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Scroopy Noopers For This Useful Post:
The United States has more trees now than it has ever had in the history of this planet. With proper forest management it is entirely possible to avoid out of control forest fires that burn down entire areas of young growth trees.
Also, at some point fires are needed because the existing tree life is not sequestering C02, and if those trees aren't being harvested? Well, time to burn and let new ones take their place.
It has been estimated that before European settlement, forests in the United States covered nearly 1 billion acres (4,000,000 km2)
As of 2016, roughly 36.21% (about one-third of the U.S.) is forested.[3] Excluding the U.S. territories, forested land in the U.S. covers roughly 818,814,000 acres (3,313,622 square kilometers).[3] As of 2005, the United States ranked seventh in the rate of loss of its old growth forests.[4]
Great documentary. Gates is actually a good thinker on the subject and doesn't have his head rooted in the sand like so many of the others at his status level do.
He is also one of the few putting his money into trying to fix the problem. People should pay attention to what he supports because he's been at this for a lot longer than our idiot politicians.
Yup! But selling the idea of nuclear is so frustrating, especially on my fellow liberals, I've argued with very bright people, showed them that amazing Nova doc on the future of Nuclear, and even then they still are like well what about wind, solar...
Yep, lets just keep building more coal plants, burn more fossil fuels when a bridge gap solution exists that can use up spent nuclear waste, 100% safe and scalable.
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
We can’t come up with technologies which we can then sell to countries like China?
Probably not, China is already (by far):
-#1 in building and installing solar panels
-#1 in building and installing wind turbines
-#1 in building nuclear power
-#1 in building hydro
-#1 in building li-ion batteries
The primary things in Energy that China wants to buy are oil and natural gas. It'll also be more than happy to sell you solar panels, wind turbines, batteries or help you build modern new power plants.
Last edited by accord1999; 09-23-2019 at 09:50 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to accord1999 For This Useful Post:
The United States has more trees now than it has ever had in the history of this planet.
We don't know that. Yes, the United States has more trees than it did 100 years ago, and a big part of that is the protections put into place by establishing national forests and parks. We'll see how Trump policy of allowing industrial activity in the national forests and preserves. A lot of reversal can take effect because of this buffoon's policies.
Quote:
With proper forest management it is entirely possible to avoid out of control forest fires that burn down entire areas of young growth trees.
The old growth forest are more important in acting as a carbon sink. If you read Crowther's study it focuses on trees with a trunk thicker than 10cm in diameter. The old growth trees have greater capacity to capture carbon.
I am curious about this "forest management" concept you are talking about. What constitutes forest management? I thought the intent was to double the number of trees on the planet? Wouldn't that mean packing them in tighter? Forest management has usually meant thinning the forest to prevent the collection of fuel on the ground. Seems in congruent with the bigger idea?
Quote:
Also, at some point fires are needed because the existing tree life is not sequestering C02, and if those trees aren't being harvested? Well, time to burn and let new ones take their place.
What do you mean that the existing tree is not sequestering CO2? As long as the tree is growing it is capturing carbon. Also, you are aware that when a tree burns it releases its stored carbon back into the atmosphere? Burning a tree is not a carbon neutral event.
Last edited by Lanny_McDonald; 09-23-2019 at 09:47 PM.
What does this mean, give an example of how we can "drive change" in China
Quote:
We can’t come up with technologies which we can then sell to countries like China?
Like? Name one.
Quote:
Profit while improving global air quality. The people of China don’t care about their air quality? They won’t also hit a breaking point? The argument of “wait until the biggest culprit blinks” is so frustrating.
China cannot realize their growth ambitions without using massive amounts of dirty energy they've admitted this. And if you accept that we are facing a climate catastrophe then not having China clean up their act makes stopping the apparent impending doom much less likely or impossible. Also, the demand for goods made in China is not going away you are I are partially responsible for China belching out pollution.
You really want China to cut down on emissions? Stop buying electronics, household products, auto parts and dozens of other things.
That's not to say we should give up, but it brings us back to what exactly is the plan. So far there doesn't seem to be one beyond the sky is falling do something.
The Following User Says Thank You to zamler For This Useful Post:
Yup! But selling the idea of nuclear is so frustrating, especially on my fellow liberals, I've argued with very bright people, showed them that amazing Nova doc on the future of Nuclear, and even then they still are like well what about wind, solar...
Yep, lets just keep building more coal plants, burn more fossil fuels when a bridge gap solution exists that can use up spent nuclear waste, 100% safe and scalable.
You can tell who’s serious about actually solving the problem vs who’s interested in yelling at clouds/reshaping the economy in a top down government controlled style by their stance on Nuclear power.
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to DiracSpike For This Useful Post:
We can plant all the trees we want, but as long as Brazil keeps plowing the Amazon to make room for agriculture it’s a losing proposition. Not only is it one of the world’s largest carbon sinks, its biodiversity is off the charts. I think we need to influence them as badly as we need to change China.
The task seems insurmountable so I kinda see why so many are nonplussed about the issue. We’re on the verge of some great things as a species. Life has never been better for so many of us so it would seriously suck to see that trend reverse.
I have no faith in us changing our habits any time soon. We’re so used to comfort and convenience. It’s going to take a money making venture to solve this somehow. I’m massively behind nuclear. Maybe we can sell it as a stop-gap until other renewables become cheaper. Azure’s ideas are compelling, although I admit to not understanding them fully. If anyone has any carbon capture tech that’s promising I’d like to hear about that as well.
Your doctor: You have stage four cancer. We need to pursue aggressive remediation protocols immediately or you're going to be dead in two years.
You: I feel fine.
Your doctor: You may feel fine right now, but you have masses growing in a number of vital organs and its already spread to your lymphatic system and bones. We need to act.
You: Isn't there room for reasonable dialogue between dead in two years and I'm just fine?
Just so we're clear, this is be critical, but to poke fun at the suggestion of more dialogue. Things aren't getting better with more dialogue. We needed to act back in the 70's when the issue was first raised. We didn't, and now we're in real deep doo. Time for talk is over. It's time for action.
If we are going to use your silly analogy, the action that you are calling for is that the patient has all of their limbs amputated, is chemically castrated, and made blind. Oh and by the way, even then, it is still unlikely that the treatment will actually work.
In Greta Thunberg's speech, she talked about reducing global emissions by 50% within 10 years (something that will not happen, and if it did, would cause mass starvation and death) and yet she still proclaimed that that target was woefully unacceptable. The time for discussion to end is when someone actually proposes a plausible idea that will work.
I think it's going to take the evacuation of a small island nation going underwater and a whole whack of climate refugees that need to go somewhere before world leaders start taking this seriously - when the responsibility for climate change happening in other parts of the world now begins hit them economically. It seems no potent storms, heatwaves, wildfires or anything else is going to convince nations to increase their commitments to CO2 reduction and climate protection.
Environmental damage and a huge shift to the political right in a recipe for disaster IMO.
