No one is burning anyone’s house down. This is why we don’t take you climate alarmists seriously. We are living, driving to work and using electricity. We all are doing this. If this means in 50 years sea level will rise then so be it. Droughts and extreme weather always happen. An increase in temperature should theoretically lead to increased precipitation. Droughts somewhere mean more abundant rain elsewhere. And we have the technology to transfer water to drought stricken regions. It just cost money. Unequal wealth distribution is the real crisis, not fossil fuels.
And people have plenty of time to respond to rising sea levels 50-100 years from now. You can foot the bill for that if you want. I have no intention of doing so.
I didn’t know I was murdering people 50 years from now by driving a gasoline operated vehicle. This is silly.
I don’t think of every human breath as pollution. Nor do I think of warming up the globe as a bad thing. Greenhouse gases are wonderful and essential to life.
And sorry, but that’s the cost of driving to work and electric power. That’s the cost of airplanes, lights, heating, cooling, running servers to host an internet website that is accessed by electronic devices, ending slavery and technological advances since the Industrial Revolution. The benefits of fossil fuels outway the costs by far. They continue to outweigh the costs by far in the developing world. They alleviate far more suffering than they could cause.
Why aren’t you? They can just live somewhere else, right?
Using electricity is not the problem. Using fossil fuels is.
Have you been to the Sahara? Death Valley?
LOTS of money. You practically have to rebuild all of the infrastructure. Also, there’s no guarantee that where there is more rain we will find arable land.
Why can’t we both reduce unequal wealth and reduce the use of fossil fuels?
That’s why we can’t take the deniers seriously.
You haven’t heard of electrical vehicles? Hydroelectric dams? Wind turbines? Solar panels? Nuclear fission power?
And Jesus said, “Ignore your own sins while others are also sinning”.
I like the idea of focusing on what can be done and seeing that as an opportunity to do good in the next years. If this is not part of the great commission, I don’t know what is
@LM77 I must say I believe you are confusing moderation with censorship because you agree with his position. Every single part of his posts were steeped in emotional blackmail (failing to act is akin to poisoning streams, burning down homes, causing droughts etc). Yes, by merely eating, breathing, using lights and taking a drive through the country we are destroying future lives. Spare me. I merely carried this alarmist logic through to its only naturally conclusion: having children is the worst of the worst in this regard.
It’s quite obvious the the only solution to climate change that will actually work is banning/limiting reproduction. When I point out that people who have children are actually the worst polluters there are, by the mere fact that they had children. I am censored. This is an indisputable fact. Nothing anyone can do pollutes the future or has a bigger carbon footprint than having a child. That is the single greatest act of pollution and environmental strain imaginable. Am I wrong?
So naturally, by the logic being espoused here, having children is akin to “poisoning streams, burning down homes, causing droughts.” I’m sorry if many of you can’t handle that simple truth. Emotional blackmail isn’t nice is it? It isn’t nice to be told that by having children you are murdering people in the future is it? How do you think all this climate alarmism makes other people feel? Just because you agree with it does not mean it’s okay or that it’s cool to censor the opposite viewpoint in the name of a consensus that has not been demonstrated. The consensus is that humans are influencing warming. I agreed with that: The consensus is not that we should all buy smart cars or that that we have a realistic chance to stop the warming or that it will beas bad as some say. Just because most published articles (97%) that directly address the issue of global climate change think humans are influencing warming does not mean they all think it’s severe as you or they all think the same mitigation strategies are needed or would work. You are confusing a consensus on one issue with different beliefs. Maybe it is the consensus there as well. Can you demonstrate that?
Many think we are already at the tipping point and many say we are at the edge but I dare say, for the latter crew, if we keep throwing billions at the problem, even if we actually pass the tipping point then we might remain there on the edge as long as the money keeps flowing. I don’t just bow down and acquiesce to the authority of incentivized informants.
Why was this graphic edited out? You want to talk fixing climate change? It’s all about regulating childbirth and the government needs to start telling people they can’t have kids. Thats not nice is it? Telling people how to live or what to do or telling them that their basic every day life is leading to mass casualties in the future? That’s the only mitigation strategy that would work at this point given the current state of the world if we are to believe the IPCC. But no, driving a gasoline powered car is the problem. I’m supposed to just up and buy a $50k electric vehicle then junk it when the battery breaks? I’ll pass.
If people can’t follow your own arguments through to their logical conclusion, maybe don’t hold to them?
The problem isn’t new kids, Vinnie. It’s new kids growing up in a rich culture who then buy into all the lies and indoctrination nonsense you’re peddling here so that they can think “who cares about the future of the world - I’m gonna live in all these resource-draining ways now because I don’t give a **** about the future.” That’s the logical conclusion of what you’re peddling. I’m sorry if you have trouble facing that reality or owning up to it.
The only reason there is such a high column on the right side of your graphic above is … wait for it … because those who think like you go on to perpetuate all the stuff that could be mitigated as shown in all the “lesser” columns to the left of it. Think about it. That right column’s height is redundant. Counted twice. Why? Because its height is merely coming from the assumption that those babies will grow up doing all the stuff that the other columns are busy mitigating. And most children born won’t be doing most of that stuff because they aren’t born into a wealthy enough family for it.
Because I love our kids and future grandkids, I’m going to do every little thing I can because I am unlike you and Ben, I am responsible for my choices, and willing to be called on it too. I did ride bike (several miles - including along a highway this morning - as I do every day) to work for a lot of reasons. I could have driven. We own vehicles. But one of those reasons is because I don’t want to be like those who make all the excuses they can to avoid taking any responsibility for anything. I have a lot of stuff I’m still pretty irresponsible about too. But I don’t brag about it, and want to be challenged to do something about it as much as I can.
The attitudes and perspectives that you are advocating most certainly are repulsive to young people and work exactly counter to your badly mistaken perceptions.
That is incorrect. Maybe you missed the scale change? It goes from 4 to 60 very fast. The cost of every trip to the doctor, all the food and packaging, clothes, toys, family trips/visits and everything a child will use for life, every trip to school, the playground, all the food they eat, lights they use, vehicles they later drive, hot showers they take and so on all leave a carbon footprint. Sorry, but the worst thing for the environment is not me driving to work in a gas powered vehicle 3 miles each day. It is people that have children that are committing the most environmentally disastrous action there is. The best course of action the government could take to prevent alarmist climate scenarios is restricting and regulating live births. It would certainly have better results then the billions of dollars in tax-payer money they already wasted/lost on CCS technology. This is the dirty little secret climate shamers don’t want to talk about: not having children.
Of course it is. Having a child means introducing a new carbon-footprint that dwarfs any other mitigation measures you might otherwise implement because they are born into a world steeped in and reliant on cheap energy. If you truly believe in 100 years millions of people will be displaced by rising sea levels, millions if not billions will suffer due to drought, food shortages and more violent storms, well, the best way to prevent that is by not having kids. That is 100% factual whether a person wants to admit it or not. Even a child born to an environmentally conscious household is going to leave a huge carbon-footprint in today’s world, unless they live off the grid. In my neck of the woods, people don’t live off the grid.
And what resource draining ways do I live in? I have lights, heat/AC, a vehicle to get to work and so on? I use a tv and computer? I like hot showers. Welcome to the United States and the rest of the developed world. I drive 3 miles to work and back each day. Wife works from home. I don’t go around shaming people who have to commute 30 miles a day to work though nor would I brag about riding a bike a few days a week to work. We have no kids but I wouldn’t shame people for having kids anymore than I would shame them for taking hot showers or using AC or taking a joy ride in a gasoline powered vehicle. The best thing we can do in my house for climate change is shed some weight, eat less meat and not buy so many things we don’t actually need. I can admit and accept those faults and happily be called out on them in a loving manner–but not by climate alarmists on the internet that come off as emotional black-mailers and hypocrites. Too many people seem to enjoy the emotional blackmail in the world today though. It is easy to blame others for problems. We as humans love to b****–myself included. I only pointed out the kids graphic because it seems some of you could benefit from a reality check–a taste of your own medicine.
When I read the story of the new king being coronated it made me think of you and your bike riding. He claims to be pro-climate while having a private jet and thousands of people from all around the world were invited to jump on airplanes and come see his coronation as King. Is that a sad joke or it is just me? Meanwhile you are shooting marshmallows at a tank by riding a bike to work a few days a week. Its nice and noble you are making such an attempt and if you enjoy riding a bike have at it. I have a mountain bike, not a street bike. But I don’t think riding a bike to work a few days a week is going to do anything of significance for the future climate. Climate, terrain and safety also dictate how and if one should engage in such an action. But after the coronation I turned on a basketball game and saw 20,000 people drove to a stadium to watch a game. Many flew there. While what you are doing may be commendable, its a mitigation strategy that is orders of magnitude smaller than what is actually being dumped out every minute of every day throughout the world. Again, marshmallows at a tank.
And most people today aren’t going to pay a lot more for the same services today in hopes that people not born yet in 100 years will have a nicer life. It would be nice if that is the way the world works, but it doesn’t. We can’t just blame “rich entitled Americans” for this because many people in the world, including Americans struggle to get by still. Single mothers certainly can benefit from cheap and affordable energy as can kids in poorer communities that are the result of prior red-lining and racism. Cheap energy is also a blessing to developing nations around the world and improves the quality of life of billions of people on this planet. right now. How doe one trade in “quality of life today” for someone 100 years from now not even born yet?
Should I support the government pumping a half trillion dollars at climate change today? How did the billions we lost on CCS plants work out so far? Should we try to stop future food shortages of people not alive yet with billions of dollars when millions of people go hungry in this country today? I get the sense that some in the climate change business are just interested in preserving their status quo. I see why the wealth would like that but the radical message of Jesus was anything but that. Tomorrow will bring its own problems he said. Focus on the kingdom of God right here, right now. If you are doing that one might argue that you should already be living a modest life. The issue for Christians should not be “climate change” but being a faithful member of God’s kingdom everyday and spreading the gospel to make that number increase. Today has enough troubles of its own to worry about.
I don’t make excuses or avoid responsibility. I have many faults and areas I need to work on. I’m not apologizing for taking a hot shower or turning on the AC in the summer though.
Using fossil fuels to move a vehicle is not a fundamental human right. We can have vehicles that don’t burn fossil fuels, and we can generate energy without using fossil fuels. You are aware of this, right?
Freedom is a fundamental human right in my opinion. That covers your comment about using fossil fuels. My car my choice.
Not all of us can afford to run out and buy electric cars nor do many of us even want them (see point #1). This is a first-world country problem.
Yes, 40% of my states energy comes from nuclear power which I support. But many of these things cost a lot of money and are more expensive than what we have going on now. But I have no complains with wealthy, developed nations building nuclear power plants, adding windmills (sorry birds!) or solar panels to limit our reliance on fossil fuels. New constructions can certainly move towards energy efficiency and cleaner solutions. I do have problems with letting the government spend half a trillion dollars on climate since much of it will be wasted (as it was in CCS plants) and I also have big problems with letting the government (and climate alarmists) tell me what to do (see point #1).
And you are aware that people don’t actually have to have children? They can overcome their biological indoctrination and even if you are determined to do so, adoption is a wonderful thing and doesn’t add an extra carbon footprint to the world.
It doesn’t. There is no fundamental right to use fossil fuels.
Not everyone can afford a new car that runs on fossil fuels. The prices for electric cars are coming down quickly, and there are even models that are comparable in price to their fossil fuel burning compatriots.
A lot of regulations that prevent pollution cost money.
Stick our heads in the sand, got it.
Having children is a fundamental human right. It isn’t under question here.
No there isn’t. And the excessive use of fossil fuels is insane. But what about the right of third world countries to feed their people and drag themselves out of an economic dark ages – something we did with fossil fuels. Thus the manufactured self-righteousness of rich countries can be hypocritical in this regard. If the rich countries (who still burn the lion’s portion of fossil fuels) pay the price for the transition from burning fossil fuels then that is another matter.
And there are alternatives to reduction of emissions. Anyway emissions are not the principle problem. There is nothing wrong with emissions as long as the source isn’t fossil fuels. I think we should also be looking at the damage to the natural processes which convert CO2 back into O2.
And… it seems to me that science has become the new religion to use for political power. Not all of it looks like honest science to me any more. To be sure, I think that the old religion is used for political power far more than science. But replacing one with the other is not a way forward.
My best friend is all about nuclear power while I am more interested in biofuels (like from algae and bio-waste). Nuclear power makes us nervous because of all the accidents and toxins we have with fossil fuels and worry that nuclear power could be worse in this regard. I am not adamantly opposed but think caution is needed… can we leave this to private companies? My friend is skeptical of many ecological “solutions” because they can be quite fraudulent. We have to keep our eye on where the energy (of electric cars) is ultimately coming from and where the waste is really going to.
Yes, reduced population will put less strain on the environment and limit carbon emissions and other pollutants. This is 100% factual and one of the most meaningful things that can be done today besides living off the grid.
Demand for oil is supposedly sky-rocketing right now. To claim we aren’t passed the “point of no return” that has been proclaimed for decades now or are not inevitably heading towards it is naive to me. We can certainly push for some mitigation and cleaner energy where affordable moving forward but in 50-100 years it will be about adaptation. I’m sure many want us to just keep throwing billions of dollars their way.
Yes, actually it is. If your having children causes tremendous pain and suffering and deaths to many people in the future, it is very much a valid question to consider. Why wouldn’t it be? You are just unwilling to follow your own arguments through to their logical conclusion. Instead you would rather assume where you choose to draw lines in life must be where I and everyone else should draw their own lines. If you want to convert an outlet in your house and drive an electric vehicle, have at it. I don’t want a car that must be charged nor a battery that cost $15,000 to replace when the warranty is up.
What is and isn’t a fundamental human right is in the eye of the beholder. I believe freedom of choice is a fundamental human right just as I believe my right to bear arms and defend my family is a fundamental human right. For most of world history it was a “fundamental human right” for people to do with their property (slaves and women) as they saw fit! What you claim is not under question actually is. It never ceases to amaze me at how bad people are at trying to see outside the little bubble they live in.
Bingo. Fossil fuels provide tremendous good in the world and as I noted, they basically ended slavery. As a first world country we can certainly make moves towards cleaner energy but expecting the rest of the world to do it and thinking all Americans are in equal financial positions to foot the enormous clean energy bills needed is silly. We have already wasted many billions of dollars on CCR.
Nuclear is great but yes, there are certainly safety concerns but I’m guessing the completely unbiased World nuclear association is accurate here
There have been two major reactor accidents in the history of civil nuclear power – Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi. Chernobyl involved an intense fire without provision for containment, and Fukushima Daiichi severely tested the containment, allowing some release of radioactivity.
These are the only major accidents to have occurred in over 18,500 cumulative reactor-years of commercial nuclear power operation in 36 countries.
The evidence over six decades shows that nuclear power is a safe means of generating electricity. The risk of accidents in nuclear power plants is low and declining. The consequences of an accident or terrorist attack are minimal compared with other commonly accepted risks. Radiological effects on people of any radioactive releases can be avoided.
The problem with many forms of alternative energy is the immensely high upfront costs with switching and the very long time it takes to see any return.
I prefer to live in reality and throw money at fixable problems as opposed to living in make-believe land.
I think we’re already approaching 40% (It’s over 30 anyway) of our annual electrical energy production in the U.S. mid-west power pool is now from wind. If that keeps growing like it has been, it shouldn’t be too many years before your electric car is driving more on wind power than any other source! In fact it can be already true now if you charge it at night or during other non-peak usage times.
A carte blanche “freedom of choice” is nonsense. Nowhere in the world does this exist, and at no time has any society ever thought this is either a real thing or a pragmatic thing. You don’t have the freedom of choice to kill people. You don’t have the freedom of choice to take other peoples’ stuff. Heck, you don’t even have the freedom of choice to buy leaded gasoline at the local 7/11.
And that means they can’t have any negative side effects?
We don’t need every country to stop using fossil fuels in order to reduce the amount of CO2 being released.
Sure it is. Rich kids in rich nations. Poor kids in impoverished nations. More SUV’s. More mopeds. More crisis.
All energy sources, including renewables, have environmental cost. The more kids, the more cost. Population is the fundamental problem. New renewable energy production brought online largely has not and will not displace fossil demand, but go towards increased consumption.
This is like equating the few kids with ladels to the many other kids with teaspoons when addressing the problem of who’s depleting the stew pot too fast (or who’s scooping the most pollution into a river). Sure - we’re all consumers; even the poorest among us exhales CO2 - thus adding to warming. But to equate that child to how nearly any of us lives who is reading these words - I can’t see how that makes any ethical sense.
Malnourished families want more food. Nourished families want a fridge. Families with a fridge want air conditioning. Households with air conditioning want everything that the rich kids have, you name it - vacations, BMW’s, symbols of status for mating. Ethical sense tells that they are allowed to seek a better life, and seek it they do. Cities like Mumbai and Nairobi are transformative, and those who immigrate to the west succeed in their new environs and live like the rest of us. The slices of the pie are becoming both larger and more numerous. The increase in energy demand is global, and particularly pronounced in the developing world.
