Forums

Enough with the GD Climate Change Threads!

Enough with the GD Climate Change Threads!

Look, everybody needs to STOP arguing about the merits of climate change. NOBODY IS GOING TO WIN THE ARGUMENT ON THIS FORUM! And no one is going to change anyone's mind on this forum.

It's so GD simple - look around. People vote and express their REAL opinions with their money, their actions, and their choices. 99.2% of all cars are still ICE cars. Most people DON'T recycle. Most people do what is most convenient or best for them regardless of the effect on the environment. Most people talk and write about climate change and DO NOTHING.

So, it is simple. If people who truly believe in climate change want REAL change, they simply have to design, develop, and produce products that are environmentally friendly, are as good or better than the non-environmentally friendly products. It's that damn simple. Take a look at what Elon Musk is doing - not being Al Gore and 99% of the people on this forum trying to scare people into taking action, but rather, BUILDING A PRODUCT THAT IS COMPETITIVE WITH THE NON_ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY PRODUCTS. That is how you make change!

98% of people simply buy what is cheap or is the best product (in their opinion) on the market. You want to save the planet? Then build products that are good for the environment that people want to buy. The majority are NOT going to pay twice as much for an inferior product just to save the planet. IT's NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! The population is NOT going to tolerate a govt that tries to eliminate or tax "to death" the products they feel are best or cheapest.

So, stop posting on a message board, and go take action. Invest in companies with green products. Stop typing on message boards and go design a product that is better than the bad products that are out there and that cost nearly the same. Again, people will buy your environmental product if it is as good and as cheap as the unfriendly product. And that goes for conservatives AND liberals! I'm sorry. But 98% of people are NOT going to inconvenience themselves in the least to save the planet.

So PLEASE, can we STOP with the climate threads?!?!!?

ray | January 23, 2016

So why did you start this one you Pbrain!!

bb0tin | January 23, 2016

LOL.
Why doesn't everyone stop complaining about bl!!dy swearing for f!!ks sake. People will stop swearing when better non-swear words are made. Go make some up and stop posting on this forum?!?!!?

jordanrichard | January 25, 2016

Ya, buddyroe, I have to agree with Ray. You probably didn't see the irony in your thread title. It is sort of like saying "I am not talking anymore" or a book that has words printed on a blank page that says "This page is left blank on purpose"

However with that said, I agree with you. Certain subjects will never be agreed upon through any "discussions" here. When people are passionate about something, words to the contrary on a computer screen, won't sway anyone.

SamO | January 25, 2016

@BuddyRoe,

And you are WRONG. Elon does talk about climate change. A lot.

And he makes great products.

It's not wrong to talk about pollution and harm caused by our actions. A moment of thought before action is never wasted.

bb0tin | January 25, 2016

@jordanrichard
You said "Certain subjects will never be agreed upon through any "discussions" here."
You are incorrect. How about you read the links provided. I know they contradict your opinion, but you can always educate yourself and change your opinion.

MitchP85D | January 25, 2016

Hey buddy, I agree with everything you said except for your post title and first paragraph. Global Warming has now become much more of a political issue than a scientific one. There is always going to be a statist, socialist, progressive type out there who wants to dig into your bank account any way that they can. And right now, they are using "Climate Change" as the bullcrap excuse to pick your pocket. As long as we freedom loving Americans are alive and kicking, we should fight the enemies of freedom in any forum that exists where free speech is still allowed!

jordanrichard | January 25, 2016

SamO, BuddyRoe cited Elon as doing something about climate change by building great products. In other words, Elon is not a poser, he is doing something about it.

bb0tin | January 25, 2016

@MitchP85D
AGW is no longer much of a scientific issue because the science now overwhelmingly supports it. We don't debate the science of whether the earth is flat any more either.
What to do about AGW is rightly a political issue. Do you think it should be a religious issue, or maybe a pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey issue?
The preferred carbon pricing mechanism is a revenue neutral tax. If a pocket is picked then the pickings are placed in the other pocket.
If we do not prevent the coming Climate Change disasters, then your pocket will be picked a far greater amount to pay for all the damage, and it won't be put back into your other pocket either.

Brian H | January 25, 2016

Mitch;
And then there are the statist deluded who think they are doing 'the right thing'...

bb0tin | January 26, 2016

@Brian H
And what do you think you are doing? The wrong thing?

Anemometer | January 26, 2016

Action doesn't always need a tax. Sometimes just a law.

Eg. I'm sure if building codes allowed it most property developers wouldn't bother fitting a sewer main to your house. Quite literally they'd leave you to deal with your own mess. Why is it for 200 years pouring your excrement into the street had been frowned upon, but waste combustion products is fine as long as it means we can get from a to b quicker. Now we have a real alternative to a free for all open air sewer isn't it time the laws were reviewed and we put an end date on when you can dump your combustion gases and let someone else deal with the consequences.

I'd go for 2025 as the date you need a special permit to buy a new ICE vehicle as I reckon by 2023 a BEV with a range of 200+ miles will cost the same or less to buy and run as an ICE. Special permits need you to provide evidence of why an EV is unsuitable. You would be restricted to using the vehicle for this purpose. Ie no trips to the mall in a 350 dualie!

This kind of legislation would "get them on it"!

PS I intentionally didn't mention CO2 or Climate change ;) CO2 being breathable with no avdverse health effects in typical street level quantities.

MitchP85D | January 26, 2016

Hey Wind Vane,

Good luck making a law like that in America! Does anybody here watch the Bill Maher show on HBO? There was a conservative anti-Trump woman on the panel of his last show who said she drives a 55 mpg vehicle because she is "cheap." I assume she drives a hybrid. That is basically what it all boils down to. The general public will buy "eco-friendly" vehicles when it becomes economically (the other eco) viable for them to do so. Everybody wants the biggest bang for the buck. The "bang" that Tesla provides is the incredible horsepower they can produce with so little "fuel." But, the price is still out of range for the general working class. Since my house is paid for, I had room in my budget for a Tesla.

Americans are not keen on the idea of government mandates, forcing them to buy something against their will. But if the price is low enough for BEVs, they will eventually go in that direction. Tesla is leading the way. Liberals, just be patient!

MitchP85D | January 26, 2016

The best bet for the "right thing" would be to leave it up to the Free Market. Throughout world history, there is always somebody, or some group of people who want to tell everybody else how to live their lives.

buddyroe | January 26, 2016

Again, the point of this thread is not for us to insult each other any more, or to try to continue to convince each other. The point is, just like MitchP85D said, most humans are going to buy what's best for them (at least that THEY think is best). If bb0tin is right that the science is clear and people should obviously know that AGW is absolutely real (and I'm not saying he IS or ISN'T), then obviously the world is filled with a bunch of self-centered people who simply don't care. I know this because Ford couldn't even give away its Focus Electric last year. If the evidence is clear, and people believe it, then they should be FIGHTING to get into an electric car.

You're not going to scare people into watering their lawn less - they want their grass green and full.
You're not going to scare people into taking cold showers - people like long hot showers.
You're not going to convince people to drive around in 80 mile range rice rockets - people are accustomed to 450 miles gas cars - with 10 minute refills.

Again, change the world by providing these things to people in an eco-friendly manner. Or, make the eco-friendly products SO cheap that they are worth the sacrifice to save the money.

It's simply a matter of replacing bad, but compelling (to steal a word from Elon) products with good, compelling products - that are SIMILARLY priced.

I can assure you that when/if Tesla has a $25k car to compete with the Camry or Accord, and it has a range of 350 to 400 miles, and can be charged in 10-15 minutes, people will buy it LIKE CRAZY! The ICE crowd did their work. They invested, they innovated, the researched, they improved. Do you REALLY think the Model T got 35 mpg? Or lasted 250,000 miles? No - but, they have done the work to get to that point. It's up to people who believe in alternative fuel vehicles (or public transportation) to do the same and present these ICE buyers with an equal or better choice. It is that simple. It is NOT complex.

Al Gore could not scare people into eco-friendly products no matter how hard he tried. It's never going to happen. Just make the eco-friendly products as good as the non and watch the problem disappear.

MitchP85D | January 26, 2016

Buddy, 100% on that post!

bb0tin | January 26, 2016

@buddyroe
Yes, people will by an EV when they believe it is their best interest to do so. But we no longer have time to wait for the market to do it's thing. Climate Change is just not about EVs. It is about all fossil fuel burning, plus agriculture and farming, plus deforestation, plus other GHG. The market is not going to sort all of these out, and particularly in the timeframe required.
Note that 1.5C-2C is what is considered the rise from pre-industrial times before significant disasters occur. The following graph has that being breeched about 2040-2060. Note that we are now 1C over so the temperature has risen faster than the predictions. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page5.php

In summary, a massive immediate sustained change to our economy is required to avoid a disastrous future. It has been over 30 years that we have known about Climate Change and the temperature rise is accelerating. We do not have another 30 years, never mind 10 years, to get serious about the problem.

RedShift | January 26, 2016

No mention of health costs due to pollution? Check. No mention of harm and cost in life and resources due to pollution and AGW. Check.

Buddy roe, what you seem to be suggesting is that people are inherently stupid, and can't factor in the above when making their choices.

All they see is the bottom line.

If so, well done! I know the average American is too stupid and apathetic to make the intelligent choice, a fact exemplified by many on this board. Including you, I'm afraid.

All those who love to ballyhoo the 'free market' - it requires an intelligent populace to make it work. We don't have that. It's very SIMPLE.
Free market here is an apathetic acceptance of crony capitalism, where simple 'greed' is really 'good'. Not integrity, as espoused by Ayn Rand in her wonderful book (not being sarcastic, I do love that book dearly) 'The Fountainhead'. Bless her soul, I'd love for the world in that book to be real. It seems so... right. Simple fact is it isn't, and CAN'T.

If we leave it to this stupid populace, they'll guzzle up all the fossil juice till the ship goes down. And those who should know better, will look the other way, because the sacred cow 'free market' should never be questioned.

buddyroe | January 26, 2016

I am not "suggesting" anything. I am telling you FACTS!! Plain ole FACTS. If you don't believe me, DO SOME RESEARCH. EVs account for less than 2% of car sales. A VERY small percentage of houses have solar panels. People are buying SUVs in record numbers - more and more fossil fuels are being burned. People vote and express their opinions with their money. That's just the way it is. Sorry. We've had a liberal, environmentalist president for 7 years - 2 of which he had 100% control over congress, could have passed ANYTHING - and basically did nothing for the climate. Maybe even he isn't totally convinced - though he says he is.

bb0tin - sorry - telling people we're in big trouble simply won't work. Al Gore played that hand 10 years ago and when he was incredibly wrong, that argument won't work any more.

I'm not saying I disagree. I'm just saying that you are wasting your breath thinking the govt can or will change things. It will HAVE to come from the private sector.

Time to get started.

RedShift | January 26, 2016

Buddy,

Missing my point. Current carbon taxes don't represent the true cost of burning fossil fuels. Were it so, the costs of alternatives *might* be a little more competitive. (I don't know) Asking me to do research on well known things is besides the point. What, you don't think I know basics of the EV sales and how little they are today? What do you think I am, a child? My point is, looking at just the market data is again re.ying upon the public and the free market as the sacred cow. You aren't able to understand my point here regarding holding that sacred in the first place!

Blaming Obama Is the go to response of you fellas. you blame him for not doing anything, yet absolve the do nothing morons in the congress for the better part of the last 8 years. Let's not go down there, with your stereo types for Al Gore, Obama etc. That only brings out your bias nothing more.

bb0tin | January 26, 2016

@buddyroe
Telling people we are in 'big trouble' is so that they support government action. That action is primarily a meaningful revenue neutral carbon tax. People will then take the needed action for the sake of their wallets. There are already carbon taxes in several countries, states etc. It just needs to be more prevalent and higher. It will come, it is just a matter of when, and hopefully before it is too late. That is why people need to understand what is required, and why, now.

RedShift | January 26, 2016

And I do agree that change has to come from the private sector, but realistically, a new technology is more expensive than the established one. Mostly. Not always.

If government hadn't helped out, we wouldn't have had a Tesla Motors. We're it not for the EPA, clean air and water might it have been possible, may be we'd be more like China.

I am not always on the side of the government. I know how inefficient, soul sucking (yes, I mean that) it can be, dealing with it. Private industry is not always right. There are countless examples of avarice, greed, incompetence that go completely unpunished. By whom? By the sacred cow, the free market! Why? Because the people are too apathetic or stupid to care.

Big government is not the sole solution, neither is the current form of capitalism we like to euphemistically call the free market. Bah, nothing is a perfect solution. Democracy, dictatorship...

MitchP85D | January 27, 2016

Hey Red Shift,

Price is a major driving force in the Free Market. When the price of oil and gasoline shoot up again, and it most certainly will, this will open up the alternatives. Scientists and engineers are doing all they can to get solar and wind competitive with fossil fuels. As the technology advances, the public will decide with their wallets. Subsidizing solar and wind only delays the technological advances. Why innovate and improve something when you are given "free money" from the taxpayers?

RedShift | January 27, 2016

Mitch,

price must include the intangibles. To some, price of gasoline is what it is. To me, it must include the health and other indirect costs.

"the public decides" is what I have a problem with.

I am no socialist or commie, but the sacred cow that is 'the public' cant make intelligent choices. It always looks for bottom dollar, which doesn't include the indirect costs I mentioned.

Tesla was given assistance. They innovated.

I don't like extremes. Too much reliance on what can be proven is a stupid public, or on proven incompetence of a government.

Too much extreme thinking can lead to no progress. IMHO.

bb0tin | January 27, 2016

@MitchP85D
You said "Subsidizing solar and wind only delays the technological advances. Why innovate and improve something when you are given "free money" from the taxpayers?"
Solar and wind have been subsidized for years, yet their costs have been dropping spectacularly at the same time. Your opinion is ignorant and incorrect.
http://cleantechnica.com/files/2014/09/price-of-solar-power-drop-graph.jpg
http://homework.uoregon.edu/pub/class/350/wc1.jpg

MitchP85D | January 28, 2016

Hey bb brain,

When the price of green energy reaches, and drops below the price of fossil fuel energy, then the public will go green. Here in Texas, we have green energy plans that use 100% wind and solar, and they are costing around 8.3 cents per KWH. This is about 50% higher than the standard electricity plans we have here. This rate is figured BEFORE all of the fees and taxes are heaped onto our energy plans. But you are correct that it has been improving. My liberal democrat sister uses one of the green plans. Funny, I never could get her to drive out of Houston with the P85D where she works. So, that explains why I have the P85D now because my wife and I drive the hell out of it! A Tesla has no business sitting in a garage.

Being a Ludwig Von Mises supporter (going to see Ron Paul and others speak at the Mises Circle in Houston this Saturday), I would like to see ALL government subsidies stopped on ALL forms of energy. If the political environment would permit such a thing, this would accelerate the price of solar/wind reaching parity with fossils.

bb0tin | January 28, 2016

@MitchP85D
Onshore wind is already cheaper than new coal and gas.
Solar is cheaper than coal in places.
http://www.sciencealert.com/wind-energy-is-now-as-cheap-as-natural-gas-a...
http://www.renewable-energysources.com/
http://cleantechnica.com/2016/01/26/irena -consider-onshore-wind-cheap-coal/
http://cleantechnica.com/2016/01/26/solar -wind-have-won-energy-technology-race-says-germany/

Solar is winning open bidding is some countries.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/solar-energy-costs-continue-to-plunge-ac...

The price reductions to enable this did not come about because of the 'free market'. It came about because of tax breaks for renewables and regulations to increase renewable power. If people had listened to the likes of you, we would not have price competitive wind and solar. Your ilk have been a hindrance, not a help.

MitchP85D | January 28, 2016

Well bb brain, what matters to me is what is available to me. And I'm sure the same applies to every other human on this whirling rocky sphere.

bb0tin | January 28, 2016

@MitchP85D
Yes, and if people listened to you they would not now be available at a competitive price.

MitchP85D | January 29, 2016

Well, it is not just me that speaks. It is people who buy and sell things in the marketplace that speak. The likes of you don't trust what the general public buys and sells. So, you and your ilk use government force to make others buy what you want them to buy.

bb0tin | January 30, 2016

@MitchP85D
Tax incentives and renewable regulations created the market to make solar and wind price competitive now, not the ‘free market’. You would not be buying it now without the historic incentives.

MitchP85D | January 30, 2016

Well, that is difficult to say. You are giving a "what if" scenario. This is similar to the mandated ethanol we use in our gasoline. Was it a good thing government mandated that we burn ethanol in our gas? What if it wasn't mandated?! Why not let the free market decide if it is a good thing to have ethanol in our gasoline.

bb0tin | January 31, 2016

@MitchP85D
It is not a 'what if'.
It is a 'what was'.
Do some research for once. I could do it for you but you seem incapable, or unwilling, to bother reading the links I provide.

MitchP85D | January 31, 2016

Hey bb brain,

I work for a living. I don't have time sitting in from of my computer, yakin' about global warming all day like you do.

MitchP85D | January 31, 2016

In front, that is.

bb0tin | January 31, 2016

@MitchP85D
You have no idea how I make a living. Just as you have no idea whether I am a layman or even a meteorologist. Not that any of that has to do with the validity of AGW.

Remnant | January 31, 2016

@ bb0tin (January 30, 2016)

<< Tax incentives and renewable regulations created the market to make solar and wind price competitive now, not the ‘free market’. >>

If this is true, we should stop buying Teslas. I thought WE have been subsidizing the ascent of Tesla.

But if Tesla also takes from the public treasury, it does not need my hard earned funds.

bb0tin | January 31, 2016

@Remnant
I do not follow your logic.
Did you get a federal and perhaps state credit when you bought your Tesla?

Brian H | January 31, 2016

The credits motivated few Tesla sales. Bigger impact with Leafs.

bb0tin | February 7, 2016

@Brian H
You missed the point entirely.

MitchP85D | February 8, 2016

With or without the tax credit, I would have bought my 2014 MS60 and my 2015 P85D. My stepdaughter just made her first payment on the MS60 this month. Consider me one proud stepdad!