Fix for global warming

Wind might pan out. The major problem is not being able to control the power output as needed for demand. This means even more added costs for storage. Same with solar. Storage for use when needed.

I agree that there is limited ability to increase hydro power, at least in first world nations. We have already built in the best places, and now with the added ecology activist power, little more I bet will be built.

 

It's so comforting that you think you know what I think. But you're wrong.

Without rapid and concerted action, it won't drop nearly as fast as it needs to.

 

The impact of a revenue-neutral carbon tax on the economy would be minimal: consumers would get back, on average, what they pay. Plus, the tax is essentially self-repealing as fossil carbon is wrung out of the economy.

 

If we keep wind below the curtailment point, storage will not be necessary. Wind is cheap as long as we don't build too much of it, and (with a few local exceptions, like west Texas) we're not close to that point yet.

You have been shown that, but you simply refuse to accept the evidence. Please forgive the rest of civilization for not allowing your mental blindness to condemn the rest of us to hell.

And that's the point. With very few exceptions, storage will never be cost-effective. It costs roughly 10 times more to store a kWh in a battery and get it out again than it costs to generate a new kWh on demand. Not to mention the rather obvious fact that generation plus storage must always have a lower EROI than generation alone. Batteries will never save us.

 

We have too much wind power in the Northwest already. There are times when the wind power has had to be taken off line because the dams were taken to their max levels so wind power could be used. Once that point is reached, the water has to be released, and environmental concerns no longer allow it to be wasted over the spillways because it's unhealthy for the fish.

No, it has never been shown in any credible manner.

It's that type of silliness that's ignored. I don't ignore scientific works, only crackpots like you saying we are "doomed!"

Storage only loses around 10% to 15% when designed well. Even though Nickle Iron batteries hold less power than others, they will last for several decades, and end up being a great choice.

Can you show proof of that?

I'm pretty sure your "10 times" is way off. However, yes, it is an added cost.

So just how do we supply energy on demand and get away from fossil fuel?

 

evidence? you have evidence? Where?

 

It is exactly what you said. Reduce and recycle is what you said and you actually think that will save the planet from the horrible fate of global warming.

 

You yourself said it would take a minimum of 15 to20 years for your plan to work. Now you run from your own words.

 

You would tax the world if you could. Poor countries would be forced to pay even more to industrialize which is something they can not even do now and your "revenue neutral" slogan is nothing more than a bumper sticker. You liberals seem to think raising taxes is the answer to everything.

 

Raising taxes isn't the answer to everything. But it is the answer to this particular thing. Failure to impose a pigovian tax on pollution of a common resource amounts to an immoral subsidy of a destructive act. But count on the right wing to be blind to to the immorality of any policy favored by FOX news.

 

Just like the bone-headed teenager who says that because smoking won't kill him this week, he won't quit this week. The destructive short-sightedness of the right wing never ceases to amaze.

 

And yet when we allowed for that in the Kyoto treaty the right wing of America screamed it's collective head off

- - - Updated - - -

And yet when we allowed for that in the Kyoto treaty the right wing of America screamed it's collective head off

 

This is a very good question. Substantive global government is the only solution. Sovereignty needs to move up a level of government. Nations need to become as states are now in the Federal model of government. States need to have effectively no power like local governments. The central government needs to become global.

There needs to be another Lincoln. Someone who comes along and makes it unacceptable for federal bodies (in this case nations, rather than states) to have differing policy. The non-interventionism of the left on national (but not state) issues needs to end.

[hr][/hr]

Like slavery, pollution needs to become a sin worthy of war. Climate change is an issue that "breaks" the notions of national sovereignty we currently have.

 

So you think raising tax on fossil fuel will stop global warming huh. How much exactly would you have to raise taxes on fossil fuels to end their use and save the planet? What would happen to industries that can not function without fossil fuel like the airline industry for instance. What would the effect be on the world economy? What would replace fossil fuel and what associated environmental damage would come from the replacements? Think this through a minute.

 

You can immediately quit smoking but you can't immediately quit fossil fuel.See the difference here?

 

Kyoto let countries like China pollute more as we polluted less thus nullifying any environmental positives and giving America nothing but economic negatives.Why would you be for that?

 

One world government huh? Alrighty then. That seems reasonable and workable and possible.

 

Obviously I don't propose it. Heck, I don't even support national or state government. But that's going to be the solution: a much greater global apparatus.

Just as reform within the states was not a viable solution to slavery, reform within nations will not be seen as a viable solution to climate change.

 

Sure we could, but could you imagine the seriousness and different type of withdraw symptoms?

 

We shouldn't, and any American that advocates Kyoto is either ignorant of the facts, or a traitor in my view.

 

Yes and just the other day I had someone on here decrying the fact that reducing CO2 would cause more starvation in third world countries

China was not the industrial powerhouse she is today when Kyoto was signed.
However despite the lack of constraint China has been working towards reducing CO2 output

 

And China was for Kyoto because it wouldn't have effect on them.

Please quote the passage that shows how it affects China. If you do a little homework, you will see I'm right.

 

Oh really? You buy the propaganda I will stick with the facts.


https://www.google.com/search?q=chi...&ei=WXX0VK6ENM60ogTxpICIDg&sqi=2&ved=0CB0QsAQ

 

I should respond to this as well.

I would love to see what leftist rag you got that from. Link please.

This is pure horse pucky. They know they have a problem, but they are still going to build something like 50 more coal powered plants. If they really were working to reduce CO2, then they would turn to the newer renewable technologies available. Their focus is reducing aerosols, not CO2.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/24/w...rgy-plans-exacerbate-climate-change.html?_r=0

How the left can confuse pollution with CO2 amazes me. Is that because CO2 is now improperly classed as a pollution?

 

'If's' are used as a way to not be so righteous and as far as I know no one can precisely predict the future...therefore...we must use 'if's' and in this case, as most, it's the reader's job to qualify and/or quantify the 'if's'...