Author Topic: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change  (Read 20730 times)

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23128
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #200 on: February 19, 2020, 08:24:34 AM »
Oh, everyone hates the lycra-clad greybeards.

Now, cycling in normal clothes on a cheap bike - well, you get a different response.

That definitely has not been my experience.  Unless you count a 'different response' being honked at, cursed at, and the occasional far-too-close pass in order to try and intimidate me off the road.

Mine either.  At least for the four years I cycle commuted to work before buying my first pair of bike shorts.  I'd say the response has been pretty consistent regardless of what I'm wearing to be honest . . . and I've ridden the same 800$ steel frame touring bike to the same area of the city for more than a decade now.

Not really much support at all of changes I'm making to live an environmentally friendly life.  In my opinion, that support will usually be completely non-existent, (and often aggressively antagonistic and against you) if you even mildly inconvenience anyone else while trying to 'live the life'.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #201 on: February 19, 2020, 08:28:48 AM »
Oh, everyone hates the lycra-clad greybeards.

Now, cycling in normal clothes on a cheap bike - well, you get a different response.

That definitely has not been my experience.  Unless you count a 'different response' being honked at, cursed at, and the occasional far-too-close pass in order to try and intimidate me off the road.

Mine either.  At least for the four years I cycle commuted to work before buying my first pair of bike shorts.  I'd say the response has been pretty consistent regardless of what I'm wearing to be honest . . . and I've ridden the same 800$ steel frame touring bike to the same area of the city for more than a decade now.

Not really much support at all of changes I'm making to live an environmentally friendly life.  In my opinion, that support will usually be completely non-existent, (and often aggressively antagonistic and against you) if you even mildly inconvenience anyone else while trying to 'live the life'.

The hatred I have gotten from biking has been almost entirely from men. (Actually, entirely from men, if I think about being yelled at, having things thrown at me, "pretending" to veer towards me to hit me...)

It makes me think of the article I read recently that said some men are less likely to recycle, use reusable bags, etc. because they're afraid people will think they're gay. I get the feeling these guys might be part of the same cohort.

Literal toxic masculinity...

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23128
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #202 on: February 19, 2020, 08:40:33 AM »
Oh, everyone hates the lycra-clad greybeards.

Now, cycling in normal clothes on a cheap bike - well, you get a different response.

That definitely has not been my experience.  Unless you count a 'different response' being honked at, cursed at, and the occasional far-too-close pass in order to try and intimidate me off the road.

Mine either.  At least for the four years I cycle commuted to work before buying my first pair of bike shorts.  I'd say the response has been pretty consistent regardless of what I'm wearing to be honest . . . and I've ridden the same 800$ steel frame touring bike to the same area of the city for more than a decade now.

Not really much support at all of changes I'm making to live an environmentally friendly life.  In my opinion, that support will usually be completely non-existent, (and often aggressively antagonistic and against you) if you even mildly inconvenience anyone else while trying to 'live the life'.

The hatred I have gotten from biking has been almost entirely from men. (Actually, entirely from men, if I think about being yelled at, having things thrown at me, "pretending" to veer towards me to hit me...)

It makes me think of the article I read recently that said some men are less likely to recycle, use reusable bags, etc. because they're afraid people will think they're gay. I get the feeling these guys might be part of the same cohort.

Literal toxic masculinity...

There is a whole diaspora of people who are assholes to bikes. . . and it depends where/when you cycle which ones you'll run into the most.

Farmland - men in pickup trucks
Any city just before schools open - women in Lexus/Mercedes/BMW SUVs  (actually in the city I've learned to become suspicious of anyone driving a luxury vehicle)
Poor parts of town - old beaten to hell econobox cars
Anywhere you see them - Taxi drivers

Both city and school buses are wildcards - they can range between giant asshole to extremely friendly.  Typically I find transport trucks aren't unfriendly, but they are often not paying attention to what's going on around them so require extra care.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #203 on: February 19, 2020, 08:48:23 AM »
Oh, everyone hates the lycra-clad greybeards.

Now, cycling in normal clothes on a cheap bike - well, you get a different response.

That definitely has not been my experience.  Unless you count a 'different response' being honked at, cursed at, and the occasional far-too-close pass in order to try and intimidate me off the road.

Mine either.  At least for the four years I cycle commuted to work before buying my first pair of bike shorts.  I'd say the response has been pretty consistent regardless of what I'm wearing to be honest . . . and I've ridden the same 800$ steel frame touring bike to the same area of the city for more than a decade now.

Not really much support at all of changes I'm making to live an environmentally friendly life.  In my opinion, that support will usually be completely non-existent, (and often aggressively antagonistic and against you) if you even mildly inconvenience anyone else while trying to 'live the life'.

The hatred I have gotten from biking has been almost entirely from men. (Actually, entirely from men, if I think about being yelled at, having things thrown at me, "pretending" to veer towards me to hit me...)

It makes me think of the article I read recently that said some men are less likely to recycle, use reusable bags, etc. because they're afraid people will think they're gay. I get the feeling these guys might be part of the same cohort.

Literal toxic masculinity...

There is a whole diaspora of people who are assholes to bikes. . . and it depends where/when you cycle which ones you'll run into the most.

Farmland - men in pickup trucks
Any city just before schools open - women in Lexus/Mercedes/BMW SUVs  (actually in the city I've learned to become suspicious of anyone driving a luxury vehicle)
Poor parts of town - old beaten to hell econobox cars
Anywhere you see them - Taxi drivers

Both city and school buses are wildcards - they can range between giant asshole to extremely friendly.  Typically I find transport trucks aren't unfriendly, but they are often not paying attention to what's going on around them so require extra care.

Yes, in the city, I definitely stay wary of anyone in a luxury vehicle, but I'd say that's more general indifference/self-centered selective blindness than outright aggressive hostility to bikers.

FINate

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3114
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #204 on: February 19, 2020, 09:04:08 AM »
Oh, everyone hates the lycra-clad greybeards.

Now, cycling in normal clothes on a cheap bike - well, you get a different response.

That definitely has not been my experience.  Unless you count a 'different response' being honked at, cursed at, and the occasional far-too-close pass in order to try and intimidate me off the road.

Mine either.  At least for the four years I cycle commuted to work before buying my first pair of bike shorts.  I'd say the response has been pretty consistent regardless of what I'm wearing to be honest . . . and I've ridden the same 800$ steel frame touring bike to the same area of the city for more than a decade now.

Not really much support at all of changes I'm making to live an environmentally friendly life.  In my opinion, that support will usually be completely non-existent, (and often aggressively antagonistic and against you) if you even mildly inconvenience anyone else while trying to 'live the life'.

The hatred I have gotten from biking has been almost entirely from men. (Actually, entirely from men, if I think about being yelled at, having things thrown at me, "pretending" to veer towards me to hit me...)

It makes me think of the article I read recently that said some men are less likely to recycle, use reusable bags, etc. because they're afraid people will think they're gay. I get the feeling these guys might be part of the same cohort.

Literal toxic masculinity...

There is a whole diaspora of people who are assholes to bikes. . . and it depends where/when you cycle which ones you'll run into the most.

Farmland - men in pickup trucks
Any city just before schools open - women in Lexus/Mercedes/BMW SUVs  (actually in the city I've learned to become suspicious of anyone driving a luxury vehicle)
Poor parts of town - old beaten to hell econobox cars
Anywhere you see them - Taxi drivers

Both city and school buses are wildcards - they can range between giant asshole to extremely friendly.  Typically I find transport trucks aren't unfriendly, but they are often not paying attention to what's going on around them so require extra care.

Don't forget delivery trucks!

A Prius almost took out me and my kids on our way to school. Was another dad taking his kids to school.

I've also learned to be wary of minivans in the critical window between school getting out and after school activities.

And also the 30 minutes or so after the high school lets out.

In summary, most drivers are dangerous and woefully unaware of bikers and pedestrians. I could finger wag all day to no effect, would rather we just implement more traffic calming and protected bike lanes and so on.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23128
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #205 on: February 19, 2020, 09:15:58 AM »
We just need cycling infrastructure that makes sense.

Protected bike lanes are great and all . . . but I'd rather have ANY bike lanes (or even just wide shoulders) than hold my breath for protected lanes.  My commute is 11 miles each way.  I've got about 200 ft of bike lanes on that route which sucks . . . but about 1/3 of the route has 6 ft shoulders which is awesome.  There's also 1/3 of the route that is extremely busy city traffic on major routes going past busy highway on/off ramps because there's no other way to get to where I need.

But there's significant resistance to cycling infrastructure that makes sense for transportation in this city by the group of people who think that building an expensive bike lane through a park from the middle of nowhere to the middle of nowhere is great for cycling, and don't understand why after building such a project they still see bikes on the road.  :P

StashingAway

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 895
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #206 on: February 19, 2020, 09:57:32 AM »
But there's significant resistance to cycling infrastructure that makes sense for transportation in this city by the group of people who think that building an expensive bike lane through a park from the middle of nowhere to the middle of nowhere is great for cycling, and don't understand why after building such a project they still see bikes on the road.  :P

This is the most insane thing for me as well! We have a 49 mile gorgeous bike path that goes... nowhere. Meanwhile, I have five grocery stores withing two miles of me that are ridiculously dangerous to get to because of lack of even a semblence of bike lane. It's absurd. People won't ever switch to bikes around here by choice because they don't even see it as an option (and frankly, with this infrastructure, they're right)

PDXTabs

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5160
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #207 on: February 19, 2020, 09:58:56 AM »
Protected bike lanes are great and all . . . but I'd rather have ANY bike lanes (or even just wide shoulders) than hold my breath for protected lanes.

Some of the best cycling infrastructure in Portland isn't even bike lanes or MUPs, it's these Neighborhood Greenways with ample signage, 20MPH speed limits, and physical (or other) barriers that force automobile traffic to turn off from time to time. Basically, drivers are trained to expect cyclists on these routes and choose not to drive there.

StashingAway

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 895
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #208 on: February 19, 2020, 10:11:02 AM »
Perhaps it would be better to use that revenue as a flat dividend back to the people, then let the local markets figure out the best way to deal with climate change.

Local markets aren't going to build rail lines, bike lanes, remove on street parking, or install more bus-only lanes. Local government might, but not local markets.

And what better way to get (local) government to act than have citizens demanding things? The only way to get everyone on board is to make carbon cost more. The only way to make sure everyone is on board is to not make it prohibitively expensive to live. If you just flat tax people, the poor riot (see France's gas tax). This is especially true because doubling the cost of gas or utilities for poor people has a significant effect on them. Doing the same for wealthy is more of an inconvenience.

If you just tax rich people, they move to other countries. We need to tax carbon at it's source to bring the true cost into the market.

A carbon fee + dividend is far and away the most supported option by economists to reduce CO2 emissions.

Give citizens the $ back, and without even trying they will consume less things that are carbon intensive just because of the cost.

All of the other things will start falling into place. People will want to commute by train or actually do the math for commute cost if gas is expensive. People will start looking for ways to make their house efficient, or start learning to live with less AC. It all will happen naturally with the price signal. We will still of course need to push for regulation and bike lanes and all that jazz. But it won't happen until the mass of people are on the same page. Then governments WILL start making infrastructure changes, once the horse is put back in front of the cart.

Plina

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 663
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #209 on: February 19, 2020, 10:26:42 AM »
Oh, everyone hates the lycra-clad greybeards.

Now, cycling in normal clothes on a cheap bike - well, you get a different response.

That definitely has not been my experience.  Unless you count a 'different response' being honked at, cursed at, and the occasional far-too-close pass in order to try and intimidate me off the road.

Mine either.  At least for the four years I cycle commuted to work before buying my first pair of bike shorts.  I'd say the response has been pretty consistent regardless of what I'm wearing to be honest . . . and I've ridden the same 800$ steel frame touring bike to the same area of the city for more than a decade now.

Not really much support at all of changes I'm making to live an environmentally friendly life.  In my opinion, that support will usually be completely non-existent, (and often aggressively antagonistic and against you) if you even mildly inconvenience anyone else while trying to 'live the life'.

The hatred I have gotten from biking has been almost entirely from men. (Actually, entirely from men, if I think about being yelled at, having things thrown at me, "pretending" to veer towards me to hit me...)

It makes me think of the article I read recently that said some men are less likely to recycle, use reusable bags, etc. because they're afraid people will think they're gay. I get the feeling these guys might be part of the same cohort.

Literal toxic masculinity...

There is a whole diaspora of people who are assholes to bikes. . . and it depends where/when you cycle which ones you'll run into the most.

Farmland - men in pickup trucks
Any city just before schools open - women in Lexus/Mercedes/BMW SUVs  (actually in the city I've learned to become suspicious of anyone driving a luxury vehicle)
Poor parts of town - old beaten to hell econobox cars
Anywhere you see them - Taxi drivers

Both city and school buses are wildcards - they can range between giant asshole to extremely friendly.  Typically I find transport trucks aren't unfriendly, but they are often not paying attention to what's going on around them so require extra care.

Don't forget delivery trucks!

A Prius almost took out me and my kids on our way to school. Was another dad taking his kids to school.

I've also learned to be wary of minivans in the critical window between school getting out and after school activities.

And also the 30 minutes or so after the high school lets out.

In summary, most drivers are dangerous and woefully unaware of bikers and pedestrians. I could finger wag all day to no effect, would rather we just implement more traffic calming and protected bike lanes and so on.

After I started assuming everyone wants to kill me, in other words they are in their own little world, my biking has become a lot safer. I never assume someone see me if it is not totally obvious. I do some roadbiking from time to time and my best experience have been in Mallorca were they drivning was nice. You can see the effects from that the island tourism industry is dependent on a lot of cyclist during the spring months.

 I have lived in some of my countries most bicycle friendly cities and I have to say the bicyclist are totally crazy. They don’t respect red lights, they overtake in places were it is not safe and don’t give signed when they turen. I actually stopped bicycling to work in that city due to the crazy bike traffic and started to walk instead. Now I am debating if I should bike 10-15 minutes or walk 40 minutes to work. The bus takes about 15 minutes but is a pain in the ass due to high use and the unmustachian cost.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23128
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #210 on: February 19, 2020, 10:33:08 AM »
Give citizens the $ back, and without even trying they will consume less things that are carbon intensive just because of the cost.

I'm not entirely sure that this assumption is true.  Our federal government implemented a carbon tax, and allowed the provinces to choose what to do with the money collected - they just had to submit a plan.  Here in Ontario we've elected a Conservative provincial government who decided that the free market approach to climate change was a stupid idea and they didn't want to be a part of it.  So they didn't submit a plan . . . forcing the Ontario government to simply remit the carbon tax proceeds to all the people in Ontario.

I haven't noticed any change at all in consumption habits at all from the carbon tax and rebate - which currently charges 20$ per ton of carbon to increase to 50$ by 2022 (works out to around 300$ per person per year in Ontario).  And even though the increase in price has been so minimal that nobody has altered their habits, there's significant political blowback and complaining from Conservatives in Canada.

PDXTabs

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5160
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #211 on: February 19, 2020, 10:57:18 AM »
If you just flat tax people, the poor riot (see France's gas tax). This is especially true because doubling the cost of gas or utilities for poor people has a significant effect on them.

You still need to tax fuel enough to drive down usage. Also, France's fuel taxes are inline with its neighbors. If you do a little more reading you will find that France had a very low tax rate on diesel, and people with diesel automobiles are sad to see that day come to an end.

In the 1950s, diesel engines were used only in heavy equipment so, to help sell off the surpluses in French refineries, the state created a favorable tax regime to encourage motorists and manufacturers to use diesel.[90] The 1979 oil crisis prompted efforts to curb petrol (gasoline) use, while taking advantage of diesel fuel availability and diesel engine efficiency. The French manufacturer Peugeot has been at the forefront of diesel technology, and from the 1980s, the French government favoured this technology. A reduction in VAT taxes for corporate fleets also increased the prevalence of diesel cars in France.[91] In 2015, two out of every three cars purchased consumed diesel fuel. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_movement

But it is true that people will literally riot in the streets to keep their carbon burning way of life.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2020, 11:06:11 AM by PDXTabs »

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3770
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #212 on: February 19, 2020, 11:40:15 AM »
You still need to tax fuel enough to drive down usage. Also, France's fuel taxes are inline with its neighbors. If you do a little more reading you will find that France had a very low tax rate on diesel, and people with diesel automobiles are sad to see that day come to an end.

In the 1950s, diesel engines were used only in heavy equipment so, to help sell off the surpluses in French refineries, the state created a favorable tax regime to encourage motorists and manufacturers to use diesel.[90] The 1979 oil crisis prompted efforts to curb petrol (gasoline) use, while taking advantage of diesel fuel availability and diesel engine efficiency. The French manufacturer Peugeot has been at the forefront of diesel technology, and from the 1980s, the French government favoured this technology. A reduction in VAT taxes for corporate fleets also increased the prevalence of diesel cars in France.[91] In 2015, two out of every three cars purchased consumed diesel fuel. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_movement

But it is true that people will literally riot in the streets to keep their carbon burning way of life.

Interesting characterization of the yellow vest riots.

What happened is that the French government (and the EU in general) bought into the idea that CO2 is evil, and planned around that above all else. So they set up their tax infrastructure to reward high-mileage diesels and strongly incentivized their use.

Then, seemingly overnight, the government “discovered” that while fuel efficient (thus low CO2 emitting), diesels are very high in particulate emissions, which is the nasty localized soot you breathe in when surrounded by diesels, and cause all sorts of health issues. So they reversed course and disincentivized the use of diesels, meaning people who had bought vehicles took a huge hit in resale value, suddenly were unable to drive in certain city centers, saw vehicles they bought because fuel was inexpensive suddenly had operating costs shoot up, etc.

It was a classic case of the government picking winners and doing a shit job of it, and then turning around and penalizing people for doing what they, the government, had asked them to do.

It gives rise to a whole host of questions about how capable the government is at making these decisions, and how much power they should have.  Frankly, some of this sentiment is what is behind Brexit. People are sick of being jerked around, especially when they’re trying to just do the right thing.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23128
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #213 on: February 19, 2020, 11:53:10 AM »
What happened is that the French government (and the EU in general) bought into the idea that CO2 is evil

I take it that you don't buy into this idea?

StashingAway

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 895
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #214 on: February 19, 2020, 12:02:52 PM »
But it is true that people will literally riot in the streets to keep their carbon burning way of life.

You are insultingly and grossly misrepresenting my discussion points. Make of that what you will.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3770
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #215 on: February 19, 2020, 12:03:42 PM »
What happened is that the French government (and the EU in general) bought into the idea that CO2 is evil

I take it that you don't buy into this idea?

Not to the exclusion of everything else, nope. It causes bad policy just like we saw here.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23128
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #216 on: February 19, 2020, 12:07:32 PM »
What happened is that the French government (and the EU in general) bought into the idea that CO2 is evil

I take it that you don't buy into this idea?

Not to the exclusion of everything else, nope. It causes bad policy just like we saw here.

What policy would have been appropriate to implement?

StashingAway

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 895
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #217 on: February 19, 2020, 12:19:02 PM »
What happened is that the French government (and the EU in general) bought into the idea that CO2 is evil

I take it that you don't buy into this idea?

I don't want to speak for Chris22, but in the context of vehicle emissions it was overly prioritized by the French government. Then Paris had several years of high pollution and smog and they realized that when setting the emissions standards that they should have regulated particulate and NOx emissions more and CO2 less. The EPA managed much better than France in this respect- US cities have overall have had less air pollution because they focused more on the overall vehicle pollutants rather than a laser focus on CO2. It's also why VW got in trouble in the US- it was impossible for them to meet diesel NOx standards for their cars (while being fine in the EU), so they had to cheat to make it work. And they wanted to make it work because they were developing all of these fine diesel vehicles for the EU market that sound environmentally friendly (read: high mpg's).

This kind of thing affects poor people most because they are more sensitive to price changes in essential goods. Hence the yellow vest protests.

StashingAway

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 895
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #218 on: February 19, 2020, 12:22:00 PM »
What happened is that the French government (and the EU in general) bought into the idea that CO2 is evil

I take it that you don't buy into this idea?

Not to the exclusion of everything else, nope. It causes bad policy just like we saw here.

What policy would have been appropriate to implement?

Carbon tax and dividend. Price the cost of carbon into the market, then the most efficient solutions will automatically sound more appealing. It's not a silver bullet, but it gets like 80% of the way there, then put regulations on problem markets after that. The dividend is what includes economically disadvantages people in the equation. They can still make decisions to be more environmentally efficient without being thrown to the wolves.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23128
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #219 on: February 19, 2020, 12:38:09 PM »
What happened is that the French government (and the EU in general) bought into the idea that CO2 is evil

I take it that you don't buy into this idea?

Not to the exclusion of everything else, nope. It causes bad policy just like we saw here.

What policy would have been appropriate to implement?

Carbon tax and dividend. Price the cost of carbon into the market, then the most efficient solutions will automatically sound more appealing. It's not a silver bullet, but it gets like 80% of the way there, then put regulations on problem markets after that. The dividend is what includes economically disadvantages people in the equation. They can still make decisions to be more environmentally efficient without being thrown to the wolves.

To be clear though . . . carbon pricing would have favored diesel cars still, right?  Which means when the diesel cars started producing unacceptable levels of particulates in cities the government still would have needed to step in to fix that issue wouldn't they?

StashingAway

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 895
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #220 on: February 19, 2020, 01:04:51 PM »
What happened is that the French government (and the EU in general) bought into the idea that CO2 is evil

I take it that you don't buy into this idea?

Not to the exclusion of everything else, nope. It causes bad policy just like we saw here.

What policy would have been appropriate to implement?

Carbon tax and dividend. Price the cost of carbon into the market, then the most efficient solutions will automatically sound more appealing. It's not a silver bullet, but it gets like 80% of the way there, then put regulations on problem markets after that. The dividend is what includes economically disadvantages people in the equation. They can still make decisions to be more environmentally efficient without being thrown to the wolves.

To be clear though . . . carbon pricing would have favored diesel cars still, right?  Which means when the diesel cars started producing unacceptable levels of particulates in cities the government still would have needed to step in to fix that issue wouldn't they?

Yep, that's how I would imagine it anyway. The carbon tax in general would regulate the CO2 before it even got to cars, so no need for a second body to regulate it specifically in vehicles (or power plants or anything else; just tax the carbon as it comes out of the ground). Then the dividend would cushion the economically disadvantaged folks so that they aren't feeling left behind by regulations.

A by-product would be that people would drive less, meaning less pollution in general. It doesn't solve environmental pollution outright, but it would help, especially in industries that combust carbon to survive. In a way it's two separate problems; local environmental pollution (particulates, NOx) and global pollution (CO2). It seems best to me to try to approach those two vastly different pollution types with different regulatory methods.


StashingAway

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 895
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #221 on: February 19, 2020, 01:17:23 PM »
Give citizens the $ back, and without even trying they will consume less things that are carbon intensive just because of the cost.

I'm not entirely sure that this assumption is true.  Our federal government implemented a carbon tax, and allowed the provinces to choose what to do with the money collected - they just had to submit a plan.  Here in Ontario we've elected a Conservative provincial government who decided that the free market approach to climate change was a stupid idea and they didn't want to be a part of it.  So they didn't submit a plan . . . forcing the Ontario government to simply remit the carbon tax proceeds to all the people in Ontario.

I haven't noticed any change at all in consumption habits at all from the carbon tax and rebate - which currently charges 20$ per ton of carbon to increase to 50$ by 2022 (works out to around 300$ per person per year in Ontario).  And even though the increase in price has been so minimal that nobody has altered their habits, there's significant political blowback and complaining from Conservatives in Canada.

I'd be interested in seeing the numbers after a few years of this. So far, your evidence that it doesn't work appears to be anecdotal. The fee and dividend model seems to be highly favored by economists, which is why I am so interested in it. If presented right, it also has the most potential to be supported by conservatives (free market) than any of the other drastic changes that are being submitted. It has "conservative" written all over it other than those who outright deny climate change.

PDXTabs

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5160
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #222 on: February 19, 2020, 01:17:49 PM »
Then, seemingly overnight, the government “discovered” that while fuel efficient (thus low CO2 emitting), diesels are very high in particulate emissions, which is the nasty localized soot you breathe in when surrounded by diesels, and cause all sorts of health issues. So they reversed course and disincentivized the use of diesels, meaning people who had bought vehicles took a huge hit in resale value, suddenly were unable to drive in certain city centers, saw vehicles they bought because fuel was inexpensive suddenly had operating costs shoot up, etc.

Be that as it may per gallon (which is how it is sold) diesel emits 16% more CO2 than gasoline. So all things being equal I would expect the taxes to be 16% more per gallon. You already have the financial incentive that they use less fuel, you don't need additional financial incentives on top of that.

EDITed to add - I can't drive a diesel or petrol car in parts of London without a huge fee, and I'm glad of it.*

* - I have mixed British and american English in this post but I imagine that it is still understandable.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2020, 01:25:07 PM by PDXTabs »

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1429
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #223 on: February 19, 2020, 02:07:18 PM »
Give citizens the $ back, and without even trying they will consume less things that are carbon intensive just because of the cost.

I'm not entirely sure that this assumption is true.  Our federal government implemented a carbon tax, and allowed the provinces to choose what to do with the money collected - they just had to submit a plan.  Here in Ontario we've elected a Conservative provincial government who decided that the free market approach to climate change was a stupid idea and they didn't want to be a part of it.  So they didn't submit a plan . . . forcing the Ontario government to simply remit the carbon tax proceeds to all the people in Ontario.

I haven't noticed any change at all in consumption habits at all from the carbon tax and rebate - which currently charges 20$ per ton of carbon to increase to 50$ by 2022 (works out to around 300$ per person per year in Ontario).  And even though the increase in price has been so minimal that nobody has altered their habits, there's significant political blowback and complaining from Conservatives in Canada.

I'd be interested in seeing the numbers after a few years of this. So far, your evidence that it doesn't work appears to be anecdotal. The fee and dividend model seems to be highly favored by economists, which is why I am so interested in it. If presented right, it also has the most potential to be supported by conservatives (free market) than any of the other drastic changes that are being submitted. It has "conservative" written all over it other than those who outright deny climate change.

The British Columbia carbon tax provides an interesting case study. Championed by liberals, implemented by conservatives, scorned by liberals ("Axe the Tax!"), then eventually loved by a large majority due to the dividends and actual environmental gains.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_carbon_tax

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23128
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #224 on: February 19, 2020, 02:30:59 PM »
Give citizens the $ back, and without even trying they will consume less things that are carbon intensive just because of the cost.

I'm not entirely sure that this assumption is true.  Our federal government implemented a carbon tax, and allowed the provinces to choose what to do with the money collected - they just had to submit a plan.  Here in Ontario we've elected a Conservative provincial government who decided that the free market approach to climate change was a stupid idea and they didn't want to be a part of it.  So they didn't submit a plan . . . forcing the Ontario government to simply remit the carbon tax proceeds to all the people in Ontario.

I haven't noticed any change at all in consumption habits at all from the carbon tax and rebate - which currently charges 20$ per ton of carbon to increase to 50$ by 2022 (works out to around 300$ per person per year in Ontario).  And even though the increase in price has been so minimal that nobody has altered their habits, there's significant political blowback and complaining from Conservatives in Canada.

I'd be interested in seeing the numbers after a few years of this. So far, your evidence that it doesn't work appears to be anecdotal. The fee and dividend model seems to be highly favored by economists, which is why I am so interested in it. If presented right, it also has the most potential to be supported by conservatives (free market) than any of the other drastic changes that are being submitted. It has "conservative" written all over it other than those who outright deny climate change.

Hey, here's hoping.  But at 300$ ish a year (and those are Canadian dollars . . . that's like what - 200$ US?), I suspect there will be minimal change to people's habits.

Conservatives have moved further and further away from being financially conservative in recent years.  Our current conservative government paid thousands of dollars of our tax money and legally required that all gas stations in the province to prominently display anti-carbon tax advertising.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1314
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #225 on: February 19, 2020, 04:02:45 PM »
The hatred I have gotten from biking has been almost entirely from men. (Actually, entirely from men, if I think about being yelled at, having things thrown at me, "pretending" to veer towards me to hit me...)

It makes me think of the article I read recently that said some men are less likely to recycle, use reusable bags, etc. because they're afraid people will think they're gay. I get the feeling these guys might be part of the same cohort.

Literal toxic masculinity...
Speaking as a middle-aged white male: my demographic is the worst. These are the people who are least likely to go to a doctor when they have a problem, least likely to listen to general health advice, most likely to be openly racist, sexist and homophobic, most likely to be heavy drinkers and gamblers, and so on.

Most are overweight or obese, suffering chronic pain (because they're fat and weak), have feelings of inadequacy in the workplace and in their relationships, realising they've gone as far in their careers as they ever will, they'll never be rich and having sex with supermodels, and they take all this disappointment and act it out by being bigoted and obnoxious.

We're mostly fuckheads. I'm sorry.

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8822
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #226 on: February 19, 2020, 04:30:54 PM »
The hatred I have gotten from biking has been almost entirely from men. (Actually, entirely from men, if I think about being yelled at, having things thrown at me, "pretending" to veer towards me to hit me...)

It makes me think of the article I read recently that said some men are less likely to recycle, use reusable bags, etc. because they're afraid people will think they're gay. I get the feeling these guys might be part of the same cohort.

Literal toxic masculinity...
Speaking as a middle-aged white male: my demographic is the worst. These are the people who are least likely to go to a doctor when they have a problem, least likely to listen to general health advice, most likely to be openly racist, sexist and homophobic, most likely to be heavy drinkers and gamblers, and so on.

Most are overweight or obese, suffering chronic pain (because they're fat and weak), have feelings of inadequacy in the workplace and in their relationships, realising they've gone as far in their careers as they ever will, they'll never be rich and having sex with supermodels, and they take all this disappointment and act it out by being bigoted and obnoxious.

We're mostly fuckheads. I'm sorry.
You know how the things we learn in adolescence have a special importance in our psychology?  For a long time I thought that there was an older generation of men (now in their 60s and older) that were adolescents before the equalities legislation of the 1970s was enacted and to whom bigotry was normalised but that the generations growing up after that would have grown up with an internalised idea that we were all equal?

Yeah, no, as the current saying seems to go.

LennStar

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3681
  • Location: Germany
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #227 on: February 20, 2020, 08:46:52 AM »
Then, seemingly overnight, the government “discovered” that while fuel efficient (thus low CO2 emitting), diesels are very high in particulate emissions, which is the nasty localized soot you breathe in when surrounded by diesels, and cause all sorts of health issues. So they reversed course and disincentivized the use of diesels, meaning people who had bought vehicles took a huge hit in resale value, suddenly were unable to drive in certain city centers, saw vehicles they bought because fuel was inexpensive suddenly had operating costs shoot up, etc.

Well, I can't be sure about France. But it definitely came only surprising (I think that EU directive is from 2008) for people totally uninformed, and at least here in Germany that topic was hot for years before we actually got "no old diesel zones".

But of course Diesel users also complain that Diesel now nearly costs as much as gas, and totally forget about the 20% higher energy of Diesel...


Just Joe

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6720
  • Location: In the middle....
  • Teach me something.
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #228 on: February 20, 2020, 09:19:51 AM »
Natural gas leakage in the US is running at about 2.3%.

https://theconversation.com/the-us-natural-gas-industry-is-leaking-way-more-methane-than-previously-thought-heres-why-that-matters-98918

Methane is 23 times as potent a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide. This means that the 2.3% leaking actually has more greenhouse impact than the 97.7% being burned. As said in the linked article, once you hit 3% leakage, you're no better off burning methane for electricity than coal. And a 2.3% leakage rate means the savings are not as great as commonly supposed.

Thus, reducing consumption of fossil fuels is a more powerful way of reducing emissions than swapping from one to another. In many cases this applies to renewables, too.

And again: fossil fuels are finite. So even if burning them were harmless, we'd be running short some day. Our children and grandchildren may need these some day, let's not set fire to their inheritance.

We are going to have to consume less. And you must take personal action if you want to convince people of the need for personal action. Otherwise you're a slaveholder petitioning the government for an emancipation proclamation.


It won't help to call the people you're trying to convince "muggles", either.

Are the flares considered leakage? Is there nothing useful that could be done with the flare gas?

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7056
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #229 on: February 20, 2020, 10:03:55 AM »
Natural gas leakage in the US is running at about 2.3%.

https://theconversation.com/the-us-natural-gas-industry-is-leaking-way-more-methane-than-previously-thought-heres-why-that-matters-98918

Methane is 23 times as potent a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide. This means that the 2.3% leaking actually has more greenhouse impact than the 97.7% being burned. As said in the linked article, once you hit 3% leakage, you're no better off burning methane for electricity than coal. And a 2.3% leakage rate means the savings are not as great as commonly supposed.

Thus, reducing consumption of fossil fuels is a more powerful way of reducing emissions than swapping from one to another. In many cases this applies to renewables, too.

And again: fossil fuels are finite. So even if burning them were harmless, we'd be running short some day. Our children and grandchildren may need these some day, let's not set fire to their inheritance.

We are going to have to consume less. And you must take personal action if you want to convince people of the need for personal action. Otherwise you're a slaveholder petitioning the government for an emancipation proclamation.


It won't help to call the people you're trying to convince "muggles", either.

Are the flares considered leakage? Is there nothing useful that could be done with the flare gas?

Pipes could be run or it could be stored and moved later. Some states require gas to be captured after the initial testing of a well. Other states don't care because capturing gas reduces profits.

skp

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 245
  • Location: oh
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #230 on: February 20, 2020, 12:15:55 PM »
I would start with not calling people "climate change deniers" .  I haven't really seen it on this thread, but have seen it at other times on this site. It is inaccurate. There is no one I know that is arguing that climate change doesn't exist.  They are denying your reasons as to why it exists.  I assume environmentalists know this already, and maybe it's just semantics, but when people say that I wonder if they really understand where the other side is coming from.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23128
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #231 on: February 20, 2020, 12:26:00 PM »
That's like saying that we shouldn't call 'flat-earth' guys by that name because they admit that hills exist . . . and therefore aren't saying that the earth is perfectly flat.  Or that we can't use the term 'homophobic' for someone who isn't afraid of gay people, but hates them.

Climate change denial is denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change.  Saying that climate change exists, but ignoring the mountain of scientific evidence pointing to the facts indicating that humans are a significant driver of the modern changing climate is still therefore climate change denial.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2020, 12:27:58 PM by GuitarStv »

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1314
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #232 on: February 20, 2020, 05:29:00 PM »
I would start with not calling people "climate change deniers" .  I haven't really seen it on this thread, but have seen it at other times on this site. It is inaccurate. There is no one I know that is arguing that climate change doesn't exist.  They are denying your reasons as to why it exists.
That's just because the argument shifts.

1. There is no climate change. So we shouldn't do anything.
2. There is climate change, but it's natural. So we shouldn't do anything.
3. There is climate change, and it's man-made, but we shouldn't do anything because it's a good thing. So we shouldn't do anything.
4. There is climate change, and it's man-made, and it's a bad thing, but we shouldn't do anything because it'd be too expensive. So we shouldn't do anything.
5. There is climate change, and it's man-made, and it's a bad thing, and fixing it in the West would actually make us money, but what about those poor people in the Third World? So we shouldn't do anything.

The more intelligent ones are using the fifth argument, and that's pretty smart, because the environmentalist movement is not full of smart people, so it has foolishly insisted on making socially progressive views part of a package deal, so "what about the Third World?" cuts into them pretty hard. But not all of the denialists are that intelligent so they might still be using some of the older arguments.

Later the arguments will become,

6. There is climate change, and it's man-made, and it's a bad thing... but it's too late now. So we shouldn't do anything.

The "denialist" part is denying the need for or desirability of action. Of course, this also means they must deny the finiteness of fossil fuels. In this they are joined by the environmentalists. Environmentalists and denialists alike are joined by being part of a consumerist society. The concept that we should consume less stuff is inconceivable to us.

Fru-Gal

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1197
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #233 on: February 20, 2020, 05:36:11 PM »
Quote
The more intelligent ones are using the fifth argument, and that's pretty smart, because the environmentalist movement is not full of smart people, so it has foolishly insisted on making socially progressive views part of a package deal, so "what about the Third World?" cuts into them pretty hard.

Agree! However, occasionally the package deal works: I was impressed by how Rep. Deb Haaland, one of first two Native American women elected to the U.S. Congress (happened in 2018), talks about climate justice from the lens of American Indian culture and experience and current pipeline battles.


Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1429
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #234 on: February 21, 2020, 08:59:57 AM »
I would start with not calling people "climate change deniers" .  I haven't really seen it on this thread, but have seen it at other times on this site. It is inaccurate. There is no one I know that is arguing that climate change doesn't exist.  They are denying your reasons as to why it exists.  I assume environmentalists know this already, and maybe it's just semantics, but when people say that I wonder if they really understand where the other side is coming from.

GuitarStv and Kyle put the straightforward argument better than I could have, so I won't rehash. But I do want to get your feedback on the thinking process you may have used to get to the conclusion you have made. Have you read up on both sides of the argument, as a kind of agnostic jury member, to get a sense for the veracity of each side? I have listened closely to both sides of the argument. My parents are in your camp and have given me well-written books on the topic. I admit, the arguments against manmade climate change are very convincing when isolated. But here's how I have decided as a non-expert jury member who has listened closely to both sides where the truth lies: 1) Given the facts presented by both sides, the manmade climate change side is far more compelling; and 2) Given the source of information from both sides, I take the vast majority of scientists to be more impartial witnesses than those mostly funded by people with a large financial stake in continuing to pollute carbon.

I recommend, if you haven't done so, that you familiarize yourself with the debate from those saying that manmade climate change is a thing. An excellent introduction is this free online class from Penn State, https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth103/, but in particular review Module 3. Module 3 provides the fundamental physics knowledge to understand that addition of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) into the atmosphere physically must increase surface temperatures (as certainly as gravity must keep the Earth in orbit around the Sun).

If you are truly informed of both sides of the debate and still consider the argument better made for manmade climate change not being proven, I challenge you to consider whether your biases are influencing your decision process.

LennStar

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3681
  • Location: Germany
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #235 on: February 21, 2020, 09:28:47 AM »
But here's how I have decided as a non-expert jury member who has listened closely to both sides where the truth lies: 1) Given the facts presented by both sides, the manmade climate change side is far more compelling; and 2) Given the source of information from both sides,

If we are taking a purely number based approach, take this:

https://fortune.com/2017/11/14/climate-change-scientists-second-notice-save-planet/
(from the not exactly eco-terrorist website fortune, just because they - as they should lol - have all the important numbers right at top. I haven't read that article, google one from your favorite source yourself if you don't like this)

Quote
First, the good news. Since 1,700 top scientists issued a dramatic warning 25 years ago about humanity pushing the Earth beyond its capacity to sustain life as we know it, we’ve managed to stabilize one of the things that was worrying them: the depletion of the ozone layer. Yay us!

Unfortunately, everything else they were warning about has only got worse since 1992. So now almost ten times as many scientists—15,364 to be precise—have come together to give us a “second notice.” With signatories including the likes of Jane Goodall and E.O. Wilson, this is the most scientists to ever co-sign a published journal article.
and it's here: https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/67/12/1026/4605229

On a side note: The ozone layer was saved in no small part by a small socialist East German company (dkk Scharfenstein / Foron), already on the way to be shut down after the reunification, who did what no capitalist company was capable of doing - produce a fridge that did not need FCKW. They also gave the patent away for free.

I really love history's quirks.

skp

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 245
  • Location: oh
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #236 on: February 21, 2020, 10:02:42 AM »
I would start with not calling people "climate change deniers" .  I haven't really seen it on this thread, but have seen it at other times on this site. It is inaccurate. There is no one I know that is arguing that climate change doesn't exist.  They are denying your reasons as to why it exists.  I assume environmentalists know this already, and maybe it's just semantics, but when people say that I wonder if they really understand where the other side is coming from.

GuitarStv and Kyle put the straightforward argument better than I could have, so I won't rehash. But I do want to get your feedback on the thinking process you may have used to get to the conclusion you have made. Have you read up on both sides of the argument, as a kind of agnostic jury member, to get a sense for the veracity of each side? I have listened closely to both sides of the argument. My parents are in your camp and have given me well-written books on the topic. I admit, the arguments against manmade climate change are very convincing when isolated. But here's how I have decided as a non-expert jury member who has listened closely to both sides where the truth lies: 1) Given the facts presented by both sides, the manmade climate change side is far more compelling; and 2) Given the source of information from both sides, I take the vast majority of scientists to be more impartial witnesses than those mostly funded by people with a large financial stake in continuing to pollute carbon.

I recommend, if you haven't done so, that you familiarize yourself with the debate from those saying that manmade climate change is a thing. An excellent introduction is this free online class from Penn State, https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth103/, but in particular review Module 3. Module 3 provides the fundamental physics knowledge to understand that addition of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) into the atmosphere physically must increase surface temperatures (as certainly as gravity must keep the Earth in orbit around the Sun).

If you are truly informed of both sides of the debate and still consider the argument better made for manmade climate change not being proven, I challenge you to consider whether your biases are influencing your decision process.
I personally am not a climate change denier.  My personal opinion is that it is a natural phenomenon exacerbated by man made causes. Why can't it be both?  I just think it is an inaccurate label.   Holocaust deniers deny the holocaust.  Climate change deniers don't deny climate change.  Do you like the term illegal immigrants?
« Last Edit: February 21, 2020, 10:08:33 AM by skp »

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #237 on: February 21, 2020, 10:08:22 AM »
I would start with not calling people "climate change deniers" .  I haven't really seen it on this thread, but have seen it at other times on this site. It is inaccurate. There is no one I know that is arguing that climate change doesn't exist.  They are denying your reasons as to why it exists.  I assume environmentalists know this already, and maybe it's just semantics, but when people say that I wonder if they really understand where the other side is coming from.

GuitarStv and Kyle put the straightforward argument better than I could have, so I won't rehash. But I do want to get your feedback on the thinking process you may have used to get to the conclusion you have made. Have you read up on both sides of the argument, as a kind of agnostic jury member, to get a sense for the veracity of each side? I have listened closely to both sides of the argument. My parents are in your camp and have given me well-written books on the topic. I admit, the arguments against manmade climate change are very convincing when isolated. But here's how I have decided as a non-expert jury member who has listened closely to both sides where the truth lies: 1) Given the facts presented by both sides, the manmade climate change side is far more compelling; and 2) Given the source of information from both sides, I take the vast majority of scientists to be more impartial witnesses than those mostly funded by people with a large financial stake in continuing to pollute carbon.

I recommend, if you haven't done so, that you familiarize yourself with the debate from those saying that manmade climate change is a thing. An excellent introduction is this free online class from Penn State, https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth103/, but in particular review Module 3. Module 3 provides the fundamental physics knowledge to understand that addition of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) into the atmosphere physically must increase surface temperatures (as certainly as gravity must keep the Earth in orbit around the Sun).

If you are truly informed of both sides of the debate and still consider the argument better made for manmade climate change not being proven, I challenge you to consider whether your biases are influencing your decision process.
I personally am not a climate change denier.  I just think it is an inaccurate label.   Holocaust deniers deny the holocaust.  Climate change deniers don't deny climate change.  Do you like the term illegal immigrants?

What term would you prefer?

skp

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 245
  • Location: oh
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #238 on: February 21, 2020, 10:10:03 AM »
Man made climate change denier???  I'm sure someone smarter than me can come up with something better.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23128
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #239 on: February 21, 2020, 10:12:34 AM »
I personally am not a climate change denier.  I just think it is an inaccurate label.  Holocaust deniers deny the holocaust.

If someone said that the Nazis only killed a few dozen Jews, would that person be a Holocaust denier in your books?

In my view, they have admitted that some Jews were killed . . . but have denied the Holocaust by failing to admit to the facts of the topic.  In the same way, a climate change denier might admit that the climate changes . . . but deny the overwhelming evidence that it is changing right now due to human actions - therefore denying the truth of modern climate change.

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1429
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #240 on: February 21, 2020, 10:14:23 AM »
I personally am not a climate change denier.  My personal opinion is that it is a natural phenomenon exacerbated by man made causes. Why can't it be both?  I just think it is an inaccurate label.   Holocaust deniers deny the holocaust.  Climate change deniers don't deny climate change.  Do you like the term illegal immigrants?

In your personal opinion, why does the evidence favor climate change as a natural phenomenon?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23128
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #241 on: February 21, 2020, 10:15:09 AM »
Man made climate change denier???  I'm sure someone smarter than me can come up with something better.

How about 'modern climate change denier'?  As the climate change in the last hundred odd years is entirely due to human action.

skp

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 245
  • Location: oh
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #242 on: February 21, 2020, 10:20:00 AM »
It's not a scientific opinion.  I think it has a natural component only because of history.  Climate change has occurred throughout the history of the earth. The ice age, the middle ages both were cooling periods in earth's history.  I don't understand why anyone would totally discount that the current warming trend has no natural origins.

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1429
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #243 on: February 21, 2020, 10:24:50 AM »
It's not a scientific opinion.  I think it has a natural component only because of history.  Climate change has occurred throughout the history of the earth. The ice age, the middle ages both were cooling periods in earth's history.  I don't understand why anyone would totally discount that the current warming trend has no natural origins.

Did you review the scientific evidence that showed the entire global warming increase can be tied to manmade pollution? Other changes in the past had different scientific explanations (volcanic aerosols, orbital cycles, etc.).

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23128
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #244 on: February 21, 2020, 10:37:28 AM »
I don't understand why anyone would totally discount that the current warming trend has no natural origins.

I'd suggest you read some of the (many, many, many) research papers demonstrating that the current warming trend is overwhelmingly caused by human action.

Until you do so, it's probably best to refrain from denying the truth of climate change if you don't want people to mention your climate change denial.

skp

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 245
  • Location: oh
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #245 on: February 21, 2020, 10:50:44 AM »
It's not a scientific opinion.  I think it has a natural component only because of history.  Climate change has occurred throughout the history of the earth. The ice age, the middle ages both were cooling periods in earth's history.  I don't understand why anyone would totally discount that the current warming trend has no natural origins.

Did you review the scientific evidence that showed the entire global warming increase can be tied to manmade pollution? Other changes in the past had different scientific explanations (volcanic aerosols, orbital cycles, etc.).

No I did not. And I don't care enough to look it up.  It won't alter my behavior.  I recycle, live 4 miles from work, compost my trash, buy local, drive a hybrid, fix things instead of buying new, wear clothes that are 15 years old, and very rarely fly. I try to not abuse the environment.  IMO whether or not you believe in climate change why would you want to? Why be a waster?  So if that makes me a climate change denier OK. (Like your alternative name by the way.  Guitar  S) I guess Kyle Shuant will have to add a number between 3 and 4 for me on the denier scale.  Person who believes climate change is both natural and man made and is a bad thing.   

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1429
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #246 on: February 21, 2020, 11:33:06 AM »
It's not a scientific opinion.  I think it has a natural component only because of history.  Climate change has occurred throughout the history of the earth. The ice age, the middle ages both were cooling periods in earth's history.  I don't understand why anyone would totally discount that the current warming trend has no natural origins.

Did you review the scientific evidence that showed the entire global warming increase can be tied to manmade pollution? Other changes in the past had different scientific explanations (volcanic aerosols, orbital cycles, etc.).

No I did not. And I don't care enough to look it up.  It won't alter my behavior.  I recycle, live 4 miles from work, compost my trash, buy local, drive a hybrid, fix things instead of buying new, wear clothes that are 15 years old, and very rarely fly. I try to not abuse the environment.  IMO whether or not you believe in climate change why would you want to? Why be a waster?  So if that makes me a climate change denier OK. (Like your alternative name by the way.  Guitar  S) I guess Kyle Shuant will have to add a number between 3 and 4 for me on the denier scale.  Person who believes climate change is both natural and man made and is a bad thing.   

It's great that you live as a Mustachian. But Mustachianism is a lifestyle, and personally I believe people can live the lifestyle that they want as long as it falls within the norms of the social contract. But that's not the issue. The issue is that you are denying a scientifically confirmed fact, a fact that has been politicized to no end by partisans to the point that many people, including yourself, are confused as to what the actual facts are. And the negation of facts I see as wrong.

As to whether or not people should care, that's a different story too. But if you're agnostic about the facts, then you probably shouldn't be forming opinions and sharing them. E.g.: If somebody asked me whether it will rain in Timbuktu next week, I should probably say I don't know and I don't care. But if I did care enough, say I was traveling to Timbuktu next week, I might try to find the answer. Now, if I ask a weatherman and an umbrella salesman, and they give me conflicting answers, and only one of those answers results in a legitimate conflict of interest, who should I believe*? And at this point, based on the conflicting evidence, should I just shrug my shoulders and say "I don't know and I don't care"?

*Actually, the umbrella salesmen have all changed their tune (though they continue to fund disinformation campaigns):
https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/energy-and-environment/environmental-protection/climate-change
https://www.shell.com/sustainability/environment/climate-change.html
https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability/climate-change.html
https://www.chevron.com/corporate-responsibility/climate-change
Etc.

p.s. You can probably guess when I joined the forum based on my username. There were so many gems, I was sad I could only pick one....
« Last Edit: February 21, 2020, 11:35:48 AM by Boofinator »

Michael in ABQ

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2626
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #247 on: February 21, 2020, 01:19:57 PM »
Here is my opinion.

The climate is changing and in general the Earth has been warming over the last century or so (as an aside changing global warming to climate change feels like a completely BS move because the climate is always changing so a colder winter or a warmer winter can both be presented as proof of climate change whereas only one could be presented a proof of global warming).

Some percentage of that is due to man-made causes and some percentage is due to natural causes/normal cycles and variation. Whether that percentage is 99% and 1% or 70% and 30% I don't know. The majority is probably from man-made causes.

Even if the global average temperature rises a few degrees, the world will not end. Our planet and many of the species on it have survived warm periods and cold periods before.

Stopping or reversing that change will be extremely expensive on a global scale - on the order of hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars. People in rich countries will be marginally impacted, i.e. doubling the price of energy might cost a household making $50k a year another few thousand. People in poor countries will probably face a greater impact.

There is waaaay too much hysteria surrounding this issue. Somehow we've been 5-10 years from an irreversible tipping point and the end of the world as we know it for a few decades. When you keep saying the sky is falling year after year and it just drops slightly, it doesn't really engender a lot of confidence. New York City will be 10 feet under water..... in a century or two.


While the concern many people feel may be heartfelt, it is hard for me not to look at this through a cynical lens as a desire for power, or anti-capitalism, or some other underlying reason other than genuine concern for current and future generations.

Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2793
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #248 on: February 21, 2020, 02:01:08 PM »
The climate is changing and in general the Earth has been warming over the last century or so (as an aside changing global warming to climate change feels like a completely BS move because the climate is always changing so a colder winter or a warmer winter can both be presented as proof of climate change whereas only one could be presented a proof of global warming).

https://climate.nasa.gov/resources/global-warming-vs-climate-change/

Global warming and climate change are two distinct terms.

Quote
Global warming is the long-term heating of Earth’s climate system observed since the pre-industrial period (between 1850 and 1900) due to human activities

Quote
Climate change is a long-term change in the average weather patterns that have come to define Earth’s local, regional and global climates.

If anyone is trying to argue that a single season of anything is "proof" of global warming, they can safely be ignored.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2020, 02:06:07 PM by Davnasty »

Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2793
Re: Talking With Muggles About Climate Change
« Reply #249 on: February 21, 2020, 02:13:31 PM »
Some percentage of that is due to man-made causes and some percentage is due to natural causes/normal cycles and variation. Whether that percentage is 99% and 1% or 70% and 30% I don't know. The majority is probably from man-made causes.

It's likely that humans are responsible for >100% of the average temperature increase in recent history.

Quote
Today’s global warming is overwhelmingly due to the increase in heat-trapping gases that humans are adding to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. In fact, over the last five decades, natural factors (solar forcing and volcanoes) would actually have led to a slight cooling of Earth’s surface temperature.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-difference-between-global-warming-and-climate-change