OK you convinced me, now what?

that is because our tariffs against canada just started, soon canada will run out of welfare when all those manufacturing jobs return to America's poor.

 

What?

For years, the AGW crowd claimed that to avoid global catastrophe the world had to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Particularly the USA had to reduce emissions.

Not hold emissions steady, but reduce them.

Now that AGW has pretty much struck out due to its many predictions not coming true, the AGW crowd is desperately trying to spin their dying cash cow into life with odd claims of "China significantly and unilaterally cutting back its coal emissions" saving the planet.

Sorry (not really) but AGW is a dead horse. Its over. Get a new scam.

 

This is just too funny but unfortunately typical of those who believe that humans can actually do something to reduce global warming.

China and India are laughing their a$$es off while they grow their economies while the west restricts economic growth. The Chinese even sell us low priced solar panels to hasten the process.

Do you actually believe any information that comes out of China ??

 

My point was that if we can hold emissions steady while still having GDP growth, it demonstrates that economic growth and emissions are not inextricably linked. So if we put our minds to it, we can REDUCE emissions without wrecking the economy.

Unsurprisingly, the rest of your post is almost entirely untrue.

 

You keep gripping your ideological-based view white-knuckle tight, even as it fails to resemble actual reality. See how far that gets you.

 

The reality is that the human race is incapable of significantly reducing the rate of increase of CO2 emissions. There is nothing ideological about that reality.

 

That is not politically or economically possible. Anyone who believes that China (whose economy will be ~ 3 X that of the US in ~ 30 years) will do anything to reduce their CO2 emissions is a fool.

 

Energy usage is tied directly to quality of life, and not just the nice things of life but to life span, health, reduced poverty, productivity, food production, basic shelter. Energy usage goes up as societies develop. The more developed a society, the more energy it uses.

The real problem is that wind and solar are not replacements for oil, coal, nuclear.

No nation is going to give up its quality of life and industry by replacing its current energy production for solar/wind just to reduce emissions. Some small nations such as Denmark will use wind farms but those nations are tiny, unique in their requirements, not significant in terms of emissions or population or industry. Large nations tinker around the edges but they are not going to make real changes. China will tinker with solar for PR reasons and for business reasons (exports) but is not going to dump its coal for solar or wind.

Until a method of producing energy for a city and for energy intensive industries is developed, emissions will not go down without an unacceptable impact on quality of life.

Yes, every house in the Southern USA can have solar, others could have wind. But that produces only a temporary drop in emissions, it does not change the overall trend of increasing energy usage and increasing emissions.

And it does cause other problems. Such as a huge demand for batteries, which are not environmentally friendly to produce and ship and dispose of.

Wrong.

Go back and read all the fear mongering by the AGW crowd over Kyoto and every other proposed AGW plan to reduce emissions. The claim was that emissions had to be reduced immediately and significantly or it would be too late, the "inertia" of the global system would take the world over the point of no return.

 

Good post, @Battle3 . Considering after 30 years of AGW activism, trillions of dollars, both public and private, spent on research and development of alternative to carbon fuels, and numerous wealth transferring mandates, and all of the various international protocols, conventions, frameworks, agreements, and accords devoted to reducing carbon emissions below 1990 levels, carbon dioxide emissions have only increased far above the 1990 benchmark.

I think it is safe to say We will not willingly adhere to an austere lifestyle and halting global warming is not the top priority of the AGW agenda.

 

At least you don't believe the sky is falling and we are nearly out of time. You seem to think we have plenty of time to change our ways.

 

What happens is you adjust your lifestyle to match your (new) belief. Obviously.

 

See above. What you DO, is start living as though it's true.

 

Why do you think it's 'austere'?

 

Yes, and yes.

Or at the very least, don't drive as much. And definitely don't use air conditioning, or any other power hungry appliances.

 

I've asked repeatedly what true believes in here do toward that and they basically say nothing.

 

You really think true believes in Phoenix are not cranking up the AC?

 

I'm a true believer, and I'm telling you what to do. All of which I do myself (plus considerably more ... including solar power and rainwater collection), and have done for 20 years.

 

No idea. Where I live, our summers go above 40c (over 100f) regularly, and we don't use AC.

 

Well you'll be happy to know I live in an off grid solar home so even as a non believer I do more to lessen my C02 output than 99% of the cult.

 

Good, you're ahead of the game. We're off grid here also, though we're off grid (power and water) by choice. We have access to both water and power here, but choose not to use consumables which make us dependent upon an external system. We grow and produce a lot of our food for the same reason.

 

We live much the same but it's because I like Independence and not because I think the sky is falling. One difference though is water, we have and use lots if it from a spring on the mountain above us. Waters going all the time for the garden and green zone around the house. If you think you will convince true believers to live like us though, think again.

 

You're lucky to have water access. We depend upon rainwater tanks for roof collection (we have several, and they're big ... but a dry spell causes issues).

Meantime, we also do it for the independence, but for us it's FINANCIAL independence. We're philosophically opposed to lining the pockets of corporations/private individuals, and prefer our money to go to taxes, charities, and our own investments. Generally speaking, we really just don't like spending money unless it's going to a public institution or a charity.

 

Oh I'm very much aware of that. The most vocal Greenies I know are the ones who travel (by aircraft) the most, and eat/drink the most imported food. Apparently air-miles don't count. It's hilarious!

 

You must live in the desert huh? Good for solar bad for water. We are lucky to have this spring above us and the gravity flow water it provides but winters are a bit dicy for the solar system.

 

Common sense, living without fossil fuels is an austere lifestyle . We have no viable alternatives to fossil fuels that will maintain an industrial society.

Oh sure, we can tack up a few solar panels to keep the porch light on, plant a windmill farm, drive around town in our all electric vehicle, but we cannot economically run the industrial processes on these alternatives to fossil fuels. Processes such as heavy manufacturing, farming, logging , mining, and the transportation of those goods.

Crank, you are likely mature and have made your money and now have time to scratch around in your garden for subsistance, but most people are young and do not want to live a austere, sedentary life without all of the modern convenience. They want a job, they want a home, they want to travel , and they want it all easy. What they will never want is to turn back the clock on industrialisation.