Hansen can say what he likes.

Post #301,405 by pwhysall 12/23/08 9:06:10 AM Reply	Hansen can say what he likes. Assuming for a moment that the climate change doomsayers are correct, then we're fucked. There's no point beating around the bush. The developed world cannot and will not sacrifice its current comfortable lifestyle in the way that would be required to fulfil the cuts in carbon dioxide emissions asked by the doomsayers. The developing world cannot and will not sacrifice what progress it makes, and will continue to use dirty, fossil-fuelled energy. My own concerns on this subject are that in obsessing over carbon dioxide emissions, the Powers That Be are distracting attention from things we can and will sort out, such as pollution, deforestation, over-fishing and so on. Also, there's no plan B: there's so much political masturbation and target-setting (behold, we're green: we can't actually reduce carbon dioxide emissions, so here's a new tax) that there's no visible activity on the far more likely outcome that "the climate's going to change, and we're not going to like it, so here's what needs to be done". Deep down, though, the problem is this; very few people in the West really care about the climate change issue. As long as their lifestyle doesn't change too much, they're content to buzz around in hybrid cars and recycle a little paper and a few bottles, and to proselytise to others about how they're saving the planet. The worst offenders usually have a generous brood of snotlings, all with their own carbon footprints. (What uses less resources than a child? No child, of course!) The elephant in the room isn't climate change, it isn't fusion, it isn't anything other than the fact that for our current technological state of development, we're overpopulated. Given that there will never be a voluntary global winnowing, we must resign ourselves to the fact that Africa is going to sink further into war, and that the first-world industrial-military complex is going to supply and arm that war. And the climate? No-one's going to give a fuck.
Post #301,412 by Another Scott 12/23/08 1:26:18 PM Reply	Good points.
Post #301,434 by Ashton 12/23/08 5:34:33 PM 12/23/08 5:37:32 PM Reply	Agreed, the 'geo-psycho'-demographic can't be ignored But, inherently it's fungible, malleable and always: susceptible of rapid (aka panic!) reversal, oft to extremes: whenever a genuine {{SHOCK!!!}} occurs. Powerful enough if a random Shock; intense when it appears to lend credence to any of the perpetually-tuned out Elephants in the shadows. (My fav brief characterization always is, 'Mankind lacks scale and relativity'. I deem this to be an easily demonstrable truism: pick any century, especially The Twentieth (and this one, so far..)) 'Decimation of the population' -- logic and reason would arrive ~there. Now who? shall smother the tykes + the fragile aged who are-Not-Linus Pauling, Bertie Russell and the like. Meanwhile, religio- Shall Do The Job Story & Variations in cgi graphics, nuaseatum perpetuo.) Alas, I think you're closest to the likely denouement: Denial is the father of intentionally-reduced consciousness of all inconvenience. Sloth + solipsism, that root of our manifest narcissism: do seem unfazeable. Fortunately -- none of us knows shit about the next acts in the play; the more Shocks -- the Less we can remotely guesstimate. Embrace the ignorance! it's our most promising chance for Hope, eh? Pollyanna in Goth threads oTpy The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. -- H.L. Mencken Edited by Ashton Dec. 23, 2008, 05:37:32 PM EST Expand All History
Post #301,464 by pwhysall 12/24/08 3:45:40 AM Reply	Thought experiment, and a question. The climate will change - we know this. Let's pretend that it will change as violently and unpleasantly as the doomsayers predict. (The reality, of course, will sit somewhere between that predicted by the "no change" and "we're all gonna die" camps) Suppose for a moment that, from every government in the world, there suddenly springs the political will to Save The Planet by cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 95%. This turns out to be a return to an agrarian, subsistence way of life for pretty much everyone who's left after the years of riots and wars. This makes us just another animal grazing off the land. Should we do this? Should we sacrifice the human race's progression to save the planet?
Post #301,467 by Another Scott 12/24/08 7:27:02 AM Reply	It might be useful to look to history. Simplified story: We've been in similar situations before. We started out burning trees for heat and to cook stuff. After a while, wood became scarce in many areas. Then, we stared burning coal for the same purpose. Coal was also found to be a good source of energy for steam engines for transportation (steam ships and railroads). Natural gas started being used for lighting and heat, and whale oil started being used for lubrication, make-up, and other things. But soon whale oil started becoming scarce. Cheap petroleum came on stream to help replace it. As cities grew, people began to realize that the streets would soon be feet-deep in horse crap if some new way to get people and goods in and out for the millions who need them. Machines were needed to replace draft animals. The point is that we know we've had to change our sources of energy over time for technological and scarcity reasons. We know that cheap petroleum and natural gas and even cheap coal will eventually be gone. We know there are consequences of using these fuels, and we know there are ways to power our societies without burning stuff. The future isn't destined to be cold and dark. I think the smart thing to do now is invest in efficiency and to fund research and small scale development of a variety potential solutions. Taxing carbon-based fuel consumption, with a increasing bite over time, to help the fuels be priced at their true(r) cost would help. Making the tax refundable (as Hansen proposes) so that the poor and middle classes aren't further impoverished is important - we want people to make different choices, not get poorer. People aren't impoverished by doing 3 things on a car trip instead of two, or by driving a Honda Fit rather than a F-350. I personally don't think that we have to attack climate change as vigorously as some - will the Earth really turn into Venus if we hit say 380 ppm versus 350 ppm CO2? Is the battle hopeless if we can't hit a particular number? I dunno. I think it's worth fighting the battle even if, at this time, we think that hitting a particular number seems too hard or too painful. What I think is most important is that we get started. Yes, we should apply similar urgency to fighting malaria and cholera and political conflicts that threaten hundreds of millions right now. It doesn't have to be an either-or choice. In short, I'm not quite so pessimistic. But I don't know the future either. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #301,471 by boxley 12/24/08 8:31:53 AM Reply	let me guess, history isnt your strong point. As cities grew, people began to realize that the streets would soon be feet-deep in horse crap if some new way to get people and goods in and out for the millions who need them. Machines were needed to replace draft animals. ****************** bwahahahahaha!!
Post #301,476 by Another Scott 12/24/08 9:39:55 AM Reply	Linky. http://www.livingcit...g_city/fs_dev.htm HTH! Cheers, Scott.
Post #301,479 by boxley 12/24/08 9:49:51 AM Reply	linky backatcha :-) http://www.ausbcomp..../cars/carhist.htm Steam power was widely used in the 1880's and 1890's on the farms of America. Cowley County had its share of these behemoths and had a large group of people with the ability to use, and the skill to fix and repair them. The smaller, less expensive automobile, with an internal combustion engine provided a new avenue of interest that was much more personal than the steam engine with its team of attendants. as you noticed the distinct lack of the mention of vehicles in your link the equal lack of the mention of horses in my link, your conclusion that cars were planned to eliminate horses in the city doesnt add up. That was a side effect, not a cause. thanx, bill
Post #301,481 by Another Scott 12/24/08 10:06:33 AM Reply	You're misreading me. I simply said that something had to replace horses in large cities. Things that replaced them included trains and subways (powered by steam and later electricity), cable cars, buses, trucks, cars, etc. Yes, there were trains and cable cars and subways before the horses were eliminated. http://www.apta.com/...tory/mileston.cfm But it wasn't until electric trains and gasoline and diesel powered vehicles took off that horses became much less popular in cities. A modern city cannot function with draft animals providing most of the power. Some type of machine had to replace them. Cheers, Scott.
Post #301,482 by boxley 12/24/08 10:31:13 AM Reply	It appears I did misread you Draft animals and large cities can work, the horse is not one of them. Machines can help but also hinder. Co-operative mechanical delivery to central depots followed by individual delivery by consumers works best. Think NYC no real nead for a car unless leaving the city. Some people like to live like that. Im not one of them. I think waste recycling should be decentralized. Units that collect the waste in a building use it to generate heat and electricity before taking balance elsewhey for further processing would be useful.
Post #301,580 by mhuber 12/26/08 7:07:16 PM Reply	A modern city cannot function with millions of cars providing most of the power. Ref: one look at Mexico D.F.

Welcome to IWETHEY!