Forums

Climate change: There is 3 types of people

Climate change: There is 3 types of people

1) People who change their habits
2) People who say they care
3) People who deny climate changes
Planet doesn’t see any difference between type 2 and type 3.

Lately, I have been arguing too much on Twitter and Instagram against type 3, I need an Instabrake.

MitchP85D | November 25, 2019

Andy, are you sure about the first sentence in your post? "No one would disagree things are getting better." The Green New Dealers are all preaching to us that the earth is going to hell in a handbasket in 12 years if we don't stop fossil fuels now. They don't think things are getting better at all!

Question for you Green New Dealers out there. Why is it that all of your ire is against the oil industry instead of the auto industry? After all, it is the auto industry that produces the vehicles that burns gasoline. If the auto industry quits producing ICE vehicles, there would be no need to burn gasoline.

For some silly reason, you Green New Dealers file lawsuits against the industry that provides the fuel demanded from them by the public. But you don't file lawsuits against the industry that produces the product that requires gasoline for operation. Why is that? I actually know what the answer is. I just want to hear from you first, to see what you will say.

SCCRENDO | November 25, 2019

Our ire is against both. But I agree the prime issue would be the automobile industry

andy.connor.e | November 25, 2019

@Mitch

You'll get your turn. Im not having 50 conversations at once. Waiting for @Darth reply.

Darthamerica | November 25, 2019

Andy forcing them is not going to work and they'll never "get off of" fossil fuels in our lifetimes. They will add EVs to their lineups as it becomes financially practical to do so. This is already in progress. To sell those vehicles they need to continually improve. So if left to their own decisions they'll do it without politicians trying to social engineer tax scams. But what you have to think about is the developing world. EVs work here but won't work in a lot of places. But they still have transportation needs. Since the rest of the world vastly outnumbers California radical far left climate crisis fanatics, firms are not going to torpedo themselves trying to appease them on arbitrarily set timelines. If EVs are as good as people think, demand will drive more of them onto roads, not legislation. Meanwhile sane science will determine what is and isn't a crisis, not fanatics and politically motivated slicksters. Mach E and Taycan exist because Tesla showed there's a market for EVs and not because of legislation or green new deals.

andy.connor.e | November 25, 2019

Agreed on the tax scams. I dont agree with any added taxes to move off fossil fuels, because ultimately the ones who eat the cost of the tax is consumers anyway. No company is going to accept that tax, they are going to just raise their prices to compensate.

On the developing world, it only makes sense to do what is practical. If a developing country is expanding using fossil fuels, then they should be allowed to do so. Its only fair because every other country was allowed to use them to bring their nations to the point that they are at today. However, if a nation has no fossil fuel infrastructure and they want to industrialize quickly, they should be adopting sustainable energy. The affordability aspect is one to consider as i dont know everything, but fossil fuels requires a vast network of logistics. So i dont know if it would actually be cost inhibiting.

Side note:

"If EVs are as good as people think, demand will drive more of them onto roads, not legislation. Meanwhile sane science will determine what is and isn't a crisis, not fanatics and politically motivated slicksters. Mach E and Taycan exist because Tesla showed there's a market for EVs and not because of legislation or green new deals."

Agree 100%.

MitchP85D | November 25, 2019

Hey, SCCRENDODO actually sounded somewhat sane for once!

jimglas | November 25, 2019

renewables are cheaper than fossil fuel
Even with the current fossil fuel subsidies

andy.connor.e | November 25, 2019

"renewables are cheaper than fossil fuel
Even with the current fossil fuel subsidies"

Some people including myself forget that gasoline is subsidized.

Darthamerica | November 25, 2019

Andy, it’s not about “let” countries use fossil fuels. They will choose them because they are cheaper and easier. No alternatives exist that can compete at the scale and speed necessary for sustained growth. Nuclear would be an option except that it’s has certain “risk” that pose their own challenges.

SCCRENDO | November 25, 2019

That is why we need to incentivize

Darthamerica | November 25, 2019

You can’t incentivize people to freeze, starve and go broke. And compulsion will lead to violence. The best thing you can do is let the market evolve itself which will result in much more efficient, cleaner burning ICEVs and many more EVs. Everyone can win.

SCCRENDO | November 25, 2019

Darth. Stop talking crap. You exaggerate. You honestly have no clue what you are talking about. Incentives change behavior and it doesn’t have to happen overnight.

NKYTA | November 25, 2019

Darths pay requires it.
Ignore.

MitchP85D | November 25, 2019

SCCRENDODO, Darth is telling you that your so-called incentives are really acts of coercion. It is a punishment scheme for those who don't want to play.

Sean Sublette of Climate Central is a devout believer in human-caused global warming. I met him at a hurricane conference in Houston back in the summer of 2017. He told me that the private sector is the way to go for reducing carbon emissions. And the government would do best by just staying out of the issue, He said Al Gore has done a great deal more harm than good for the cause of reducing GHG. I told him that I owned a Tesla. He loves the cars, and he said he wishes he could afford one. He owns a fuel efficient 4-cylinder economy car. He said the auto industry's efforts for increasing fuel efficiency are a good direction, and a good transition till the day when technology catches up, then ultimately surpasses ICE in the marketplace.

Sean Sublette is clearly on your side of the issue of human-caused global warming SCCRENDODO. But he is on the side of Darth and me when confronting how to deal with the issue.

Darthamerica | November 26, 2019

It really is a problem that will solve itself if you truly are crazy enough to believe cars are destroying the planet. Here’s the simple truth... fossil fuels are a finite resource. That means in a supply and demand driven market, prices will go up. That will by itself incentivize auto makers to make fuel economy better because people will want that. It will also make EVs more mainstream because it’s cheaper in most cases to charge an EV. More EVs means more R&D into making EVs better and more efficient. Over the next few decades as the technology matures, EVs may reach a point were they are equivalent to ICE in terms of cost and performance. People will buy more. ICEV will then be used only when their unique flexibility or performance is required. Then as alternative sources of grid energy arrive at scale necessary for modern nations, our emissions will decrease. All of this happening with little to no government regulations. Just the law of supply and demand. But that won’t solve climate change which will continue unabated at the discretion of nature in ways we can only guess at. So there is no need for this climate crisis foolishness fad. Just leave it alone and things will be fine.

andy.connor.e | November 26, 2019

"They will choose them because they are cheaper and easier. No alternatives exist that can compete at the scale and speed necessary for sustained growth."

Where is the evidence to support this?

Darthamerica | November 26, 2019

Andy you are the evidence in your demographic! We are the evidence! All of us are Tesla owners because for us, we can afford it. The pros outweigh the cons enough to make it worth it to us to own. But all of us are paying a king's ransom to drive these cars relatively speaking when you consider someone living off of minimum wage or someone in a 3rd world country. These are the people who you need to get into EVs if you want to see less ICEVs. But we're are a long long way away from the day where an EV is truly cost competitive with an ICEV. That's why we have to qualify cost comparisons with statements with "similarly priced ICEV". Because you can always find an ICEV with superior performance overall for less money. And because EV infrastructure is a 1st world phenomenon, the compromises are not suitable to most of the world. And this is before we talk about the EV supply chain which is decades behind ICEVs. So when people come here and advocate "incentives" or compulsory actions to force people out of their cars, it's inhumane because 90%+ cannot afford that.

Darthamerica | November 26, 2019

With regard to power generation the same thing applies. Alternatives are a niche application. They do not have the reliability or density enough to provide power the way fossil fuels do. And they cannot yet be scaled up at the rate of growth needed for global energy consumption. Nuclear is the only exception but it has security and political concerns. We aren't in the anthropocene. We are in the “gasolicene”! And considering the benefits over the last 100+ years we are better off for it.

andy.connor.e | November 26, 2019

I still cannot yet afford a Tesla.

But i was almost sure that comment i quoted was coming from saying fossil fuels are better for development than sustainable energy.

Darthamerica | November 26, 2019

Andy, fossil fuels are better from a cost/reliability perspective for developing countries. Nuclear is the only thing that comes close but it is hobbled with other concerns that set a high barrier for entry.

SCCRENDO | November 26, 2019

Andy. That is the point. The government needs to incentivize you to buy an EV even if it is not a Tesla. They need to stop supporting the fossil fuel industry. These 2 clowns pretend that ICE vehicles are the same as BEVs and this should have a level playing field. However the cleaner vehicles should clearly be given an advantage to compete. As it happens ICE vehicles have been given an unfair advantage for a long time. These guys don’t post facts because the facts are against them. They are counting on stupid people to believe them. The good news is that there are trees here than on Foxnews and at Trump Ralleys

SCCRENDO | November 26, 2019

Less here than at Trump rallies and watching Foxnews.

andy.connor.e | November 26, 2019

Again, where is the data for that?

Darthamerica | November 26, 2019

Andy what data are you asking for and from who?

MitchP85D | November 26, 2019

SCCRENDODO, this is where you are off your rocker. The government has no "need to incentivize" anything. The only people who say that are those who WANT a certain government policy to control others.

Market forces will be the ultimate decider. The price of fossil fuels will not remain cheap forever. And when the price does shoot up, this will be the ultimate "incentive" to develop alternatives.

andy.connor.e | November 26, 2019

@Darth

"fossil fuels are better from a cost/reliability perspective for developing countries."

MitchP85D | November 26, 2019

What is there NOT to agree about that Andy? It seems like a rather straight forward matter-of-fact statement to me.

SCCRENDO | November 26, 2019

There is a lot not to agree about. You don't have any facts. And of course Darth is even worse. He is a pure Russian troll sprouting nonsense. He has not provided even one link, not even a MItch pseudolink to support the trash he writes.

andy.connor.e | November 26, 2019

@Darth @Mitch

Im waiting for the data that supports the statement:

"fossil fuels are better from a cost/reliability perspective for developing countries."

MitchP85D | November 26, 2019

You don't need a link for common sense SCCRENDODO! How many investors do you see lining up to cover Africa with solar panels and wind turbines??!!!!

MitchP85D | November 26, 2019

The same goes to you Andy.

andy.connor.e | November 26, 2019

Thats not data. Still waiting.

andy.connor.e | November 26, 2019

@Darth has been a pleasure to have a discussion with. @Mitch, again, you'll have your turn. Im talking to @Darth right now.

MitchP85D | November 26, 2019

Oh my goodness Andy. I can't hardly wait!

andy.connor.e | November 26, 2019

that was a joke i've had too many unproductive conversations with you.

Darthamerica | November 26, 2019

Andy, just watch these. https://youtu.be/BJWq1FeGpCw

MitchP85D | November 26, 2019

Andy, I can tell you and SCCRENDODO do not want to confront the question of how many investors are there lining up to cover Africa with wind turbines and solar panels. Got lots of billionaires out there. They are not so eager to do that. I wonder why!

Darthamerica | November 26, 2019
andy.connor.e | November 26, 2019

@Darth

You have got to be kidding me with the first video link you posted. Are you actually serious? That cant be your argument. This 5 minute video of a person talking is literally trying to correlate fossil fuel emissions with clean water. Of the first 4 comments on that video, these two pretty much nail it on the head:

1: Look! This chart shows that as Earth's horse population has declined, there have been more Nobel Prize winners! Therefore, decline in horse population = increase in Nobel Prize winners.

2: Oh yes, fossil fuel consumption correlates with clean water. But did you also know that rising autism rates are correlated with declining global pirate populations?
Autism is caused by a lack of pirates.

This is statistical analysis BS 101. Draw a correlation to anything. Not a very good argument dude. Try again.

andy.connor.e | November 26, 2019

Second video was even worse. Zero numbers, Zero data. Just someone talking into a camera. If this is the basis of your argument in which is predicated on, this discussion is over right now.

Please, and i mean seriously please, try again.....

andy.connor.e | November 26, 2019

Also i can see his eyes moving back and forth reading the script. This is not data. This is propaganda.

jimglas | November 26, 2019

@andy: why do you engage them
they are just trolls trying to disrupt
probably from the same Russian troll farm

andy.connor.e | November 26, 2019

@jim

Nearly 300 comments on this thread. There is nothing to disrupt on this thread, there are multiple climate related threads outside this one.

MitchP85D | November 26, 2019

Andy, does it require energy to purify and transport water? Pretty straight forward problem to deal with. Think about that for a while, then respond.

SCCRENDO | November 26, 2019

@jimglas. Darth is almost definitely from the Russian troll farm. Or at a minimum follows their recipe. MItch is just a confused third rate weatherman who cannot separate fact from fiction.

andy.connor.e | November 26, 2019

"Andy, does it require energy to purify and transport water? Pretty straight forward problem to deal with. Think about that for a while, then respond."

Power the purification process with solar. Your argument is identifying the need for energy. The argument in the video is not outlining any data that is suggesting we cannot use sustainable energy to achieve the same goal.

andy.connor.e | November 26, 2019

And in addition to that, the person talking into the camera is trying to correlate the quantity of fossil fuel emissions with the quality of tap water. Tap water quality is not a result of emissions, that is a result of technology. This is what you would call bad statistical analysis. Try again.

jimglas | November 26, 2019

@andy: My comment about disruption was not specific to this thread. They repeatedly insert their disinformation while ignoring fact. their purpose is to disrupt, not contribute.

jimglas | November 26, 2019

btw: where is Fish?

MitchP85D | November 26, 2019

Wrong Andy. It requires energy to purify and transport water. Solar is too intermittent to do that.

Pages