Author Topic: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?  (Read 386194 times)

Pooplips

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 425
  • Age: 32
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1100 on: January 20, 2017, 10:12:34 AM »
Nereo, I agree with all your points. The coal issues are very complicated but I am hopeful things will improve.

Same with miles driven many variables but things are going in the right direction for the most part

I just don't see actual clean fossil fuels being more cost-effective than improving solar. The R&D money is better spent bringing costs down on capturing the infinite free energy falling on most of our heads during daylight hours.

Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it won't happen. The market will decide which technology wins or looses, it always does. I'm just hoping people keep an open mind about all sources of energy.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2149
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1101 on: January 20, 2017, 10:16:49 AM »
Nereo, I agree with all your points. The coal issues are very complicated but I am hopeful things will improve.

Same with miles driven many variables but things are going in the right direction for the most part

I just don't see actual clean fossil fuels being more cost-effective than improving solar. The R&D money is better spent bringing costs down on capturing the infinite free energy falling on most of our heads during daylight hours.

I agree, but it's not just limited to solar. Wind turbines, particularly the offshore kind which would produce the most energy/cost have run into major roadblocks for people who don't want it to 'spoil the view' and (ironically) to environmental groups concerned with bird strikes. Ironic since both mining and burning of fossil fuels creates their own major environmental problems, but it's easier to litigate against point-source impacts than diffuse ones.

Often ignored is that a large chunk of energy concerns could be addressed by much better energy efficiency in our homes and buildings (currently ~50% of our energy budget). Unlike cars which have a roughly decade-long lifespan, homes last on average 50 years - commercial buildings slightly longer.
Geothermal (another green energy source) can also help with this.

That's the thing though, solar has the fewest negative externalities out of any of the currently viable technologies, or technologies likely to be viable in the near-term. I mean, hydrogen would be great, but right now it costs more energy to extract than it produces.

Pooplips

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 425
  • Age: 32
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1102 on: January 20, 2017, 10:17:38 AM »
Nereo, I agree with you about housing efficiency. One of the issues I see with this is strict building codes. I watched a documentary on the guy that builds earth ships. His biggest issue was being allowed to experiment and actually build his houses because of the building codes. Allowing people more freedom might help get new technology experiments doing on a very local level.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5302
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1103 on: January 20, 2017, 10:18:28 AM »
Nereo, I agree with all your points. The coal issues are very complicated but I am hopeful things will improve.

Same with miles driven many variables but things are going in the right direction for the most part

I just don't see actual clean fossil fuels being more cost-effective than improving solar. The R&D money is better spent bringing costs down on capturing the infinite free energy falling on most of our heads during daylight hours.
I'll belive this when i see it. When renewables are more cost effective, they will be used, period. Until they are, fossil fuels have many advantages, ontop of price, sadly.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8625
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1104 on: January 20, 2017, 10:23:15 AM »
Nereo, I agree with all your points. The coal issues are very complicated but I am hopeful things will improve.

Same with miles driven many variables but things are going in the right direction for the most part

I just don't see actual clean fossil fuels being more cost-effective than improving solar. The R&D money is better spent bringing costs down on capturing the infinite free energy falling on most of our heads during daylight hours.

Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it won't happen. The market will decide which technology wins or looses, it always does. I'm just hoping people keep an open mind about all sources of energy.

Have to disagree Pooplips, but the market hasn't decided which technology wins or loses in the energy sector. Regulation, subsidies, public sentiment and 'inertia' often skew things.  As examples, several nuclear power stations have gone offline recently before their end-of-service dates(I'm currently doing sub-contract work for one decommissioning).  The broad reason given was that smaller-capacity nuclear plants cost more to operate than other sources, but when you look at the costs it's predominately for storage and safety, both of which are heavily influenced by ornerous regulations (e.g. The promised nuclear repository was never built).
Wind farms are being challenged because they 'ruin the view' in many locales. At the same time there are subsides paid to the oil and gas industries, as well as both federal and state taxes on gasoline. SHift those in either direction and whether driving an EV is a good economical decision changes with it. FInally, there's 'inertia'.  Most homes in New ENgland use heating oil, because the infrastructure was built out first. It's often the MOST expensive option for heating in the region, but the cost to convert older homes is prohibitive. There are a lot of restrictions on wood burning and pellet stoves.

To say the market will decide is completely false.

ETA: to avoid accusations of favoring only 'green' technologies, we currently provide federal subsidies on residential solar, and for buying EVs.  On and on...
The "market" is deciding our choices only after we (often arbitrarily) place incentives or burdens on all different sorts of energies.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2017, 10:28:32 AM by nereo »

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2149
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1105 on: January 20, 2017, 10:26:16 AM »
Nereo, I agree with all your points. The coal issues are very complicated but I am hopeful things will improve.

Same with miles driven many variables but things are going in the right direction for the most part

I just don't see actual clean fossil fuels being more cost-effective than improving solar. The R&D money is better spent bringing costs down on capturing the infinite free energy falling on most of our heads during daylight hours.
I'll belive this when i see it. When renewables are more cost effective, they will be used, period. Until they are, fossil fuels have many advantages, ontop of price, sadly.

Apples and oranges though. Fossils are here, we use them, they're cheap and efficient. I get it. I'm talking about research spending. Improving solar cell efficiency and/or bringing down cost is going to have a more significant payback, dollar-for-dollar, than trying to clean up existing dirty tech. Hell, improving battery technology for transportation (even when it's fueled by fossil-electric) is probably a better use of our money.

Pooplips

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 425
  • Age: 32
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1106 on: January 20, 2017, 10:32:43 AM »
Nereo, I agree with all your points. The coal issues are very complicated but I am hopeful things will improve.

Same with miles driven many variables but things are going in the right direction for the most part

I just don't see actual clean fossil fuels being more cost-effective than improving solar. The R&D money is better spent bringing costs down on capturing the infinite free energy falling on most of our heads during daylight hours.

Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it won't happen. The market will decide which technology wins or looses, it always does. I'm just hoping people keep an open mind about all sources of energy.

Have to disagree Pooplips, but the market hasn't decided which technology wins or loses in the energy sector. Regulation, subsidies, public sentiment and 'inertia' often skew things.  As examples, several nuclear power stations have gone offline recently before their end-of-service dates(I'm currently doing sub-contract work for one decommissioning).  The broad reason given was that smaller-capacity nuclear plants cost more to operate than other sources, but when you look at the costs it's predominately for storage and safety, both of which are heavily influenced by ornerous regulations (e.g. The promised nuclear repository was never built).
Wind farms are being challenged because they 'ruin the view' in many locales. At the same time there are subsides paid to the oil and gas industries, as well as both federal and state taxes on gasoline. SHift those in either direction and whether driving an EV is a good economical decision changes with it. FInally, there's 'inertia'.  Most homes in New ENgland use heating oil, because the infrastructure was built out first. It's often the MOST expensive option for heating in the region, but the cost to convert older homes is prohibitive. There are a lot of restrictions on wood burning and pellet stoves.

To say the market will decide is completely false.

ETA: to avoid accusations of favoring only 'green' technologies, we currently provide federal subsidies on residential solar, and for buying EVs.  On and on...
The "market" is deciding our choices only after we (often arbitrarily) place incentives or burdens on all different sorts of energies.

Listen we are on the same side. I agree with what your saying. Sol and I had this discussion months ago. I want to see all subsidies removed from every industry for the reasons you listed.

I have to disagree with you though. The market does decided... based on the information available. As taxes, subsidies, regulations, tech, etc. change the market changes.

Pooplips

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 425
  • Age: 32
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1107 on: January 20, 2017, 10:35:00 AM »
Nereo, I agree with all your points. The coal issues are very complicated but I am hopeful things will improve.

Same with miles driven many variables but things are going in the right direction for the most part

I just don't see actual clean fossil fuels being more cost-effective than improving solar. The R&D money is better spent bringing costs down on capturing the infinite free energy falling on most of our heads during daylight hours.
I'll belive this when i see it. When renewables are more cost effective, they will be used, period. Until they are, fossil fuels have many advantages, ontop of price, sadly.

Apples and oranges though. Fossils are here, we use them, they're cheap and efficient. I get it. I'm talking about research spending. Improving solar cell efficiency and/or bringing down cost is going to have a more significant payback, dollar-for-dollar, than trying to clean up existing dirty tech. Hell, improving battery technology for transportation (even when it's fueled by fossil-electric) is probably a better use of our money.

Maybe.

We do need to figure out the battery situation though. Lithium mines aren't exactly "clean".

Pooplips

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 425
  • Age: 32
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1108 on: January 20, 2017, 10:37:58 AM »
Micowaves are currently being experimented with in the fracking industry. That tech could get rid of the waste from fracking. Things are continually moving. Its fun to see.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2149
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1109 on: January 20, 2017, 10:42:06 AM »
Micowaves are currently being experimented with in the fracking industry. That tech could get rid of the waste from fracking. Things are continually moving. Its fun to see.

As long as you don't care about groundwater or earthquakes.

Fracking is a bad idea. It is not fun to see.

Gondolin

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 533
  • Location: Northern VA
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1110 on: January 20, 2017, 10:43:58 AM »
Quote
I want to see all subsidies removed from every industry for the reasons you listed.

Won't this put us where the Chinese currently are? Aka strip mining coal until the air pollution is so bad that people start dying.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12073
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1111 on: January 20, 2017, 10:45:27 AM »
We did our part by not having kids.  More carbon saving than even the greenest of green can claim.

Me, too.

Isn't this the line of thinking that leads supervillains to try to wipe out humanity?

Well, something can be said for thinking outside the box, getting to the root of the problem and taking drastic steps to address the issue.

", he said, glaring out at the world from behind his monocle and sinister mustache while stroking a fluffy white cat.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8625
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1112 on: January 20, 2017, 10:52:56 AM »
Micowaves are currently being experimented with in the fracking industry. That tech could get rid of the waste from fracking. Things are continually moving. Its fun to see.

There's an enormous amount of energy available with fracking, but much of it is natural gas which has its own challenges.  We currently don't have the infrastructure to use lots of natural gas (e.g. Few cars are set up, no fueling network) and limited ability to ship it to foreign markets (plus large LNG storage terminals have huge risks associated with them(. Oil of course is extracted too but lately we have a glut of global oil - that will probably flip at some point, and the technology will likely keep a ceiling on future oil prices for a while.

Regarding getting rid of all subsidies how exactly would we accomplish this?  Is the cost of burning coal simply the cost of pulling it from the ground, or do we require it to be burned "cleanly"?  What level of "clean" do we establish (and do we use Carbon Taxes or Trade-and-cap?) Who's responsible for security of our LNG terminals and nuclear waste?  If we say "the companies who own them" what happens when they go out of business?
Is the federal tax on gasoline imposed for our highway fund fair when EVs don't pay into it?

Pooplips

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 425
  • Age: 32
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1113 on: January 20, 2017, 10:53:42 AM »
Quote
I want to see all subsidies removed from every industry for the reasons you listed.

Won't this put us where the Chinese currently are? Aka strip mining coal until the air pollution is so bad that people start dying.

No, not at all. Removeing subsidies/tax breaks is different than removing regulations.

We as a society decide the environmental costs are associated with certain things (CO2, particulates, P, NH3, etc). Then we have the government impose those costs on buisnesses, who in turn impose those costs on us through higher prices. Then we let the market run. Through individual price actions the market will decide which tech/energy source is the best at the time and will continue to adjust as factors change.


nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8625
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1114 on: January 20, 2017, 11:02:21 AM »
Quote
I want to see all subsidies removed from every industry for the reasons you listed.

Won't this put us where the Chinese currently are? Aka strip mining coal until the air pollution is so bad that people start dying.

No, not at all. Removeing subsidies/tax breaks is different than removing regulations.

We as a society decide the environmental costs are associated with certain things (CO2, particulates, P, NH3, etc). Then we have the government impose those costs on buisnesses, who in turn impose those costs on us through higher prices. Then we let the market run. Through individual price actions the market will decide which tech/energy source is the best at the time and will continue to adjust as factors change.

...yet one of the stated purposes of the subsidies for cleaner technologies is to get people and municipalities to switch.  Its opposite sides of the same coin.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3348
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1115 on: January 20, 2017, 11:03:39 AM »
In less than 30 minutes both the White House Climate Change webpage and Department of Laborís report on Advancing LGBT Workplace Rights has been taken down.


https://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/climate-change

Pooplips

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 425
  • Age: 32
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1116 on: January 20, 2017, 11:07:27 AM »
Micowaves are currently being experimented with in the fracking industry. That tech could get rid of the waste from fracking. Things are continually moving. Its fun to see.

There's an enormous amount of energy available with fracking, but much of it is natural gas which has its own challenges.  We currently don't have the infrastructure to use lots of natural gas (e.g. Few cars are set up, no fueling network) and limited ability to ship it to foreign markets (plus large LNG storage terminals have huge risks associated with them(. Oil of course is extracted too but lately we have a glut of global oil - that will probably flip at some point, and the technology will likely keep a ceiling on future oil prices for a while.

Regarding getting rid of all subsidies how exactly would we accomplish this?  Is the cost of burning coal simply the cost of pulling it from the ground, or do we require it to be burned "cleanly"?  What level of "clean" do we establish (and do we use Carbon Taxes or Trade-and-cap?) Who's responsible for security of our LNG terminals and nuclear waste?  If we say "the companies who own them" what happens when they go out of business?
Is the federal tax on gasoline imposed for our highway fund fair when EVs don't pay into it?

Natural gas does have it's challenges, but everything has challenges. Natural gas is an option in the Trucking industy. Trucks can be cheaply converted to natural gas. The infrastructre will certainly take time to develope but so will any alternative energy source infrastructure.

I partially answered your question in my last post. It's easier to explain with an example.

In the industry I work the EPA sets limits on what we can discharge to the local waterways. As long as we are below that limit everything is great. If we go over we pay heavy fines. We have found ways to lower our discharges further below the limits with some investments and no one wants to hear it. Why spend money when we already meet the limits?

I would like to see a particulate or pollution tax ($/1 ppb or whatever). That way special interests and what not can be kept out of it. If your industy produces pollution you get taxed accordingly with no favoritism. That way you have every incentive to reduce your pollution as it keeps you cometitive in the market against other technology.

I am writing this fast, I haope it makes sense.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7342
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1117 on: January 20, 2017, 11:08:11 AM »
I'll belive this when i see it. When renewables are more cost effective, they will be used, period. Until they are, fossil fuels have many advantages, ontop of price, sadly.

Just to be totally clear about this, fossil fuels are only cost competitive because they are so heavily subsidized by the government. 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12073
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1118 on: January 20, 2017, 11:09:11 AM »
In less than 30 minutes both the White House Climate Change webpage and Department of Laborís report on Advancing LGBT Workplace Rights has been taken down.


https://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/climate-change

Maybe the problems have been solved?

Pooplips

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 425
  • Age: 32
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1119 on: January 20, 2017, 11:11:43 AM »
Quote
I want to see all subsidies removed from every industry for the reasons you listed.

Won't this put us where the Chinese currently are? Aka strip mining coal until the air pollution is so bad that people start dying.

No, not at all. Removeing subsidies/tax breaks is different than removing regulations.

We as a society decide the environmental costs are associated with certain things (CO2, particulates, P, NH3, etc). Then we have the government impose those costs on buisnesses, who in turn impose those costs on us through higher prices. Then we let the market run. Through individual price actions the market will decide which tech/energy source is the best at the time and will continue to adjust as factors change.

...yet one of the stated purposes of the subsidies for cleaner technologies is to get people and municipalities to switch.  Its opposite sides of the same coin.

I think it is different because who decides which tech gets the subsidy? Wind? Solar? Fossil Fuels? Some magical energy we don't even know of yet? All of them.

Fossil fuels are bad now but they wouldn't be if we could pull the bad stuff out. If that tech developed would you subsidise fossil fuels?

I think doing it the way I descibed creates a level playing field as well as imposes costs on polluting industries.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8625
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1120 on: January 20, 2017, 11:33:30 AM »
Quote
I want to see all subsidies removed from every industry for the reasons you listed.

Won't this put us where the Chinese currently are? Aka strip mining coal until the air pollution is so bad that people start dying.

No, not at all. Removeing subsidies/tax breaks is different than removing regulations.

We as a society decide the environmental costs are associated with certain things (CO2, particulates, P, NH3, etc). Then we have the government impose those costs on buisnesses, who in turn impose those costs on us through higher prices. Then we let the market run. Through individual price actions the market will decide which tech/energy source is the best at the time and will continue to adjust as factors change.

...yet one of the stated purposes of the subsidies for cleaner technologies is to get people and municipalities to switch.  Its opposite sides of the same coin.

I think it is different because who decides which tech gets the subsidy? Wind? Solar? Fossil Fuels? Some magical energy we don't even know of yet? All of them.

Fossil fuels are bad now but they wouldn't be if we could pull the bad stuff out. If that tech developed would you subsidise fossil fuels?

I think doing it the way I descibed creates a level playing field as well as imposes costs on polluting industries.

I'm not disagreeing with you per-se, but rather saying that it would be functionally near-impossible.

To illustrate, consider this.  You mentioned EPA regulations - but what level do we set the regulations at?  One idea is to look at the existing technology and take what's 'cleanest'* and say that all other sources must meet this level or penalized/taxed up the wazoo.  For wind there's a minor environmental penalty with their construction, plus bird/bat strikes of about 1.6/turbine (location dependent).  No particulates or green-house gases over 3 decades of operation

So - oil/gas/coal would have to not only strip out all particulates, but also somehow recapture all greenhouse gases.  That would make them non-starters, particularly if we eliminated the governmental subsidies already in place. I saw one group try to calculate out the costs and they put gasoline between $12-15/gallon.

To be clear that would be extreme, but where we set the line precisely determines whether a technology is viable or not. Most environmentalists would argue they are already way too leanent.  The GOP thinks they are already way too stringent.

Adding to the complexity is that the effects of pollutants are non-linear.  If we had only one coal fired plant we'd be fine just doing some particulate filtration and calling it a day.  But each one ton of pollutants we add is more costly than the last ton.  That in a nut-shell was the idea behind cap-and-trade.

SomedayStache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 770
  • Live Long and Prosper
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1121 on: January 20, 2017, 11:35:31 AM »
In less than 30 minutes both the White House Climate Change webpage and Department of Laborís report on Advancing LGBT Workplace Rights has been taken down.


https://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/climate-change

Fuck.  This is really happening.

OurTown

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 959
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Tennessee
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1122 on: January 20, 2017, 11:36:20 AM »
Grab America by the pussy and don't let go.

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3226
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1123 on: January 20, 2017, 11:36:53 AM »
In less than 30 minutes both the White House Climate Change webpage and Department of Labor’s report on Advancing LGBT Workplace Rights has been taken down.


https://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/climate-change

Thanks for giving an appropriate response to this post on my FB feed:




Blech.  Patriotism: so we can take credit for accomplishments you had no part in, and have an excuse to hate people we never met. (-Carlin I think)
« Last Edit: January 20, 2017, 11:47:03 AM by Malaysia41 »

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7342
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1124 on: January 20, 2017, 11:38:57 AM »
Fossil fuels are bad now but they wouldn't be if we could pull the bad stuff out. If that tech developed would you subsidise fossil fuels?

Is my mic on?  I feel like I'm repeating myself.

We already subsidize fossil fuels more than any other energy source except maybe nuclear (just because the long term costs of nuclear are less well known).  The government has been "playing favorites" for over a hundred years on this issue, and the last decade of incrementally increased subsidies to renewable energies are a drop in the bucket by comparison.

When official US foreign policy is driven by access to renewable energy for the next 100 years, I'll consider the scales evened out a little.  Oh, and we'll have to make all of our federal lands available for lease at below-market rates to renewable energy companies.  And we'll have to use imminent domain to acquire property for renewable energy processing and transportation facilities.  And the US Navy will have to protect all of the renewable energy shipping routes.  And renewable energy companies will have to get the same tax breaks that oil and gas companies get for all costs related to research, exploration, production, and equipment amortization.  And whatever negative consequences the renewable energy industry generates will have to be paid for and cleaned up by several new federal agencies with multibillion dollar per year budgets devoted to the renewable energy equivalent of acid mine drainage, retention reservoir failures, fly ash uranium contamination, acid rain, strip mining operations that go bankrupt, black lung disease, increased asthma rates, river and aquifer contamination, mercury contamination of fish, and oh yes let's not forget the slow and inevitable release of greenhouse gas emissions that threaten all life on earth for the next twenty thousand years.

When faced with the trillions of dollars we have spent on subsidizing the oil and gas industry over the past 200 years, we'd be hard pressed to ever give renewables a fair shake.  We could devote half of the federal budget to it for the next decade and totally solve the world's energy crisis, and STILL be way behind what we've spent on subsidizing carbon extraction industries.

So ya'll can just knock it off with the "renewables aren't cost competitive" bullshit.  Renewable have been cheaper than carbon burning since the middle 90s, if you look at the cost to the country instead of the cost to the consumer.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8625
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1125 on: January 20, 2017, 11:41:18 AM »
In less than 30 minutes both the White House Climate Change webpage and Department of Laborís report on Advancing LGBT Workplace Rights has been taken down.


https://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/climate-change

"Sound energy policy begins with the recognition that we have vast untapped domestic energy reserves right here in America. The Trump Administration will embrace the shale oil and gas revolution to bring jobs and prosperity to millions of Americans. We must take advantage of the estimated $50 trillion in untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves, especially those on federal lands that the American people own. We will use the revenues from energy production to rebuild our roads, schools, bridges and public infrastructure. Less expensive energy will be a big boost to American agriculture, as well."

THis on the new White House website.

SisterX

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2606
  • Location: 2nd Star on the Right and Straight On 'Til Morning
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1126 on: January 20, 2017, 11:43:14 AM »

Wouldn't this be everyone in developed countries? I mean, I see very few people give up their car, walk everywhere, stop buying anything produced or transported or powered by fossil fuels, switch to renewable power and make sure to offset the footprint of the production and transportation of that power generation with carbon sinks. Or just DOING WITHOUT. I mean... literally no one is doing these things.  Everyone is paying lip service to climate change while actively destroying the planet. I mean, at this point it doesn't matter and everyone is screwed no matter what, so to rag on some people because they drive an SUV is pretty lame - we are all just as guilty as they are, perhaps even more so if we know what we are doing is leading directly to the death and disaster of millions of people, but we just can't stop eating food from half way across the country or using energy to power our laptop to post about how green everyone else should be.

Just because this is true of you and your peer group does not mean it's true everywhere. And I can't even say what I see is because I'm currently in a liberal state. My former red state, people are thinking about these things and talking and making changes as well. I currently know quite a few people who are carless -- with families! My own family has one car which gets used approximate 1-2 times per week, always with more than one person, and there are three adults/drivers who have use of it. (Me, spouse, brother.) We each, individually, put more miles on our bikes each week than we collectively do for the car.
I could list all the other ways we work at being environmentally friendly (giving up the dryer, turning down the heat, turning off lights and electronics, etc.) and we didn't even need to buy fancy new tech for it! You know, we "gave stuff up" the way you're saying people don't. And it's spreading among my peer group! Yes, my life and those of my family are having an impact on the planet. But that doesn't take away from the fact that we're trying to minimize that impact.
On the other hand, why should I tell you about these measures? You think it's useless anyway, and are using that as a shield to ignore your own hypocrisy and avoid taking action. Awesome.
I'm thinking that your dander is up because you are one of those people I was talking about. Go ahead and whine that we're screwed anyway. The rest of us will actually be out there trying to make the world a better place because that's worthwhile. Your defeatist attitude? It is not worthwhile, in any way shape or form. Have fun with it, though! "Here lies MetricMouse, who believed we were all screwed anyway and lived his life in a way that ensured it. RIP."

Pooplips

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 425
  • Age: 32
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1127 on: January 20, 2017, 11:51:37 AM »
Obviously, this would need to be phased in over time and I wouldn't expect any industy to retroactively capture green house gases if thats what you meant by recapture.

I agree it is an open-ended fallacy type peoplem because everyone has there own line they would like to have drawn. I agree pollution is non-linear. Exponentially increases may be needed.

It will be forever changing. Somethings that aren't pollutants now may be in the future.

My issue is, picking which energy to subsidise will be at the expense of some energy not even discovered yet. Its impossible to prove that negative but imagine if the goverment subsidised the pneumatic/steam power industry because they thought it was a better technology than electricity. (That may be a terrible illustration but you get the idea)

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 852
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1128 on: January 20, 2017, 11:53:36 AM »
Quote
The Trump Administration is also committed to clean coal technology, and to reviving Americaís coal industry, which has been hurting for too long.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/america-first-energy

There is no such thing as clean coal. Public Relations talking point. We're so fucked.

Edit. All of the new whitehouse.gov policy positions make me sick.

Unique User

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 502
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1129 on: January 20, 2017, 11:56:24 AM »
In less than 30 minutes both the White House Climate Change webpage and Department of Laborís report on Advancing LGBT Workplace Rights has been taken down.


https://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/climate-change

"Sound energy policy begins with the recognition that we have vast untapped domestic energy reserves right here in America. The Trump Administration will embrace the shale oil and gas revolution to bring jobs and prosperity to millions of Americans. We must take advantage of the estimated $50 trillion in untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves, especially those on federal lands that the American people own. We will use the revenues from energy production to rebuild our roads, schools, bridges and public infrastructure. Less expensive energy will be a big boost to American agriculture, as well."

THis on the new White House website.

so it begins, we're all screwed. 

Pooplips

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 425
  • Age: 32
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1130 on: January 20, 2017, 11:57:00 AM »
Fossil fuels are bad now but they wouldn't be if we could pull the bad stuff out. If that tech developed would you subsidise fossil fuels?

Is my mic on?  I feel like I'm repeating myself.


I didn't mean to make you upset Sol. haha. Yes, those were bad things done in the past but is your solution really to just tip the scales as far as you can the other way?

My goal it to even the scale by the way.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5302
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1131 on: January 20, 2017, 12:33:45 PM »

Wouldn't this be everyone in developed countries? I mean, I see very few people give up their car, walk everywhere, stop buying anything produced or transported or powered by fossil fuels, switch to renewable power and make sure to offset the footprint of the production and transportation of that power generation with carbon sinks. Or just DOING WITHOUT. I mean... literally no one is doing these things.  Everyone is paying lip service to climate change while actively destroying the planet. I mean, at this point it doesn't matter and everyone is screwed no matter what, so to rag on some people because they drive an SUV is pretty lame - we are all just as guilty as they are, perhaps even more so if we know what we are doing is leading directly to the death and disaster of millions of people, but we just can't stop eating food from half way across the country or using energy to power our laptop to post about how green everyone else should be.

Just because this is true of you and your peer group does not mean it's true everywhere. And I can't even say what I see is because I'm currently in a liberal state. My former red state, people are thinking about these things and talking and making changes as well. I currently know quite a few people who are carless -- with families! My own family has one car which gets used approximate 1-2 times per week, always with more than one person, and there are three adults/drivers who have use of it. (Me, spouse, brother.) We each, individually, put more miles on our bikes each week than we collectively do for the car.
I could list all the other ways we work at being environmentally friendly (giving up the dryer, turning down the heat, turning off lights and electronics, etc.) and we didn't even need to buy fancy new tech for it! You know, we "gave stuff up" the way you're saying people don't. And it's spreading among my peer group! Yes, my life and those of my family are having an impact on the planet. But that doesn't take away from the fact that we're trying to minimize that impact.
On the other hand, why should I tell you about these measures? You think it's useless anyway, and are using that as a shield to ignore your own hypocrisy and avoid taking action. Awesome.
I'm thinking that your dander is up because you are one of those people I was talking about. Go ahead and whine that we're screwed anyway. The rest of us will actually be out there trying to make the world a better place because that's worthwhile. Your defeatist attitude? It is not worthwhile, in any way shape or form. Have fun with it, though! "Here lies MetricMouse, who believed we were all screwed anyway and lived his life in a way that ensured it. RIP."
Turning down the heat, replacing light bulbs with leds, carpooling... really? People are absolutely going to die because of climate change. If anyone thinks that riding a bike built from parts sourced around the world and shipped across oceans using diesel electric engines that spew pollution directly into the ocean, and are then assembled in factories powered by fossil fuels is offsetting the harm that they are creating to others, they are delusional.  I am quite aware of my impact on the environment, and how much it will harm hundreds of people  (just my own impact will be responsible for this, if not greater damage). I don't pretend that sharing a xar or line drying my clothes means I won't cause serious pain to hundreds or thousands of others. To do so is an exercise in cognitive dissonance, especially if one has children, which will add exponentially to one's climate impact.

The point is that everyone in midern societies is ensuring this will happen; riding.a bicycle or eating a few pounds less meat than one's neighbors is changing the outcome literally in no way for anyone; this is fine if one recognizes that and accepts that their choices are murdering hundreds of others; it's not ok for one to ride a bike "more than they use their car" and think they are accomplishing something. Millions of people live without cars, or even bicycles; and life is about to get even worse for them.  The fact that people in North America even have clothes dryers or cars or imported bicycles or food from other states is the problem.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2149
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1132 on: January 20, 2017, 12:36:28 PM »
In less than 30 minutes both the White House Climate Change webpage and Department of Laborís report on Advancing LGBT Workplace Rights has been taken down.


https://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/climate-change

"Sound energy policy begins with the recognition that we have vast untapped domestic energy reserves right here in America. The Trump Administration will embrace the shale oil and gas revolution to bring jobs and prosperity to millions of Americans. We must take advantage of the estimated $50 trillion in untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves, especially those on federal lands that the American people own. We will use the revenues from energy production to rebuild our roads, schools, bridges and public infrastructure. Less expensive energy will be a big boost to American agriculture, as well."

THis on the new White House website.

Where's my dividend check?

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2149
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1133 on: January 20, 2017, 12:38:29 PM »
Fossil fuels are bad now but they wouldn't be if we could pull the bad stuff out. If that tech developed would you subsidise fossil fuels?

Is my mic on?  I feel like I'm repeating myself.


I didn't mean to make you upset Sol. haha. Yes, those were bad things done in the past but is your solution really to just tip the scales as far as you can the other way?

My goal it to even the scale by the way.

You have an interesting definition of "even" if you think Sol's advocating tipping as far as you can the other way. He's saying coming anywhere close to "even" would take metric assloads of money subsidizing renewables, and immediately cutting off the fossils.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7342
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1134 on: January 20, 2017, 12:39:13 PM »
The point is that everyone in midern societies is ensuring this will happen; riding.a bicycle or eating a few pounds less meat than one's neighbors is changing the outcome literally in no way for anyone;

I disagree.  Your personal individual choices can absolutely have a positive impact on other people.

calimom

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 743
  • Location: Northern California
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1135 on: January 20, 2017, 12:40:33 PM »
In less than 30 minutes both the White House Climate Change webpage and Department of Laborís report on Advancing LGBT Workplace Rights has been taken down.


https://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/climate-change

Fuck.  This is really happening.

...and somewhere people are cheering about this. It's so fucked up.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7342
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1136 on: January 20, 2017, 12:45:43 PM »
He's saying coming anywhere close to "even" would take metric assloads of money subsidizing renewables, and immediately cutting off the fossils.

For hundreds of years, yes.  And that's clearly not going to happen.

So instead, I'd settle for offering identical subsidies to renewable energy companies that we currently offer to carbon industries.  Those subsidies probably can't be zero, because we have so much national security investment in protecting carbon industries, but we could at least increase renewable energy subsidies to match the carbon subsidies we're committed to.

But this is fantasy land.  Our new President hates renewable energy and adores coal.  He thinks climate change is a hoax, and clearly has no understanding of the basic physics behind energy balances.  He'll slash investments in renewable energy and increase oil drilling on US federal lands.  He'll withdraw from the Paris climate accord.  He'll do everything one man can do to ruin the planet that he and his own family have to live on, in part because he and his can live forever inside a hermetically sealed Trump Tower and so they don't really care what happens to wherever everyone else lives.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2017, 12:52:40 PM by sol »

Pooplips

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 425
  • Age: 32
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1137 on: January 20, 2017, 12:46:34 PM »
Fossil fuels are bad now but they wouldn't be if we could pull the bad stuff out. If that tech developed would you subsidise fossil fuels?

Is my mic on?  I feel like I'm repeating myself.


I didn't mean to make you upset Sol. haha. Yes, those were bad things done in the past but is your solution really to just tip the scales as far as you can the other way?

My goal it to even the scale by the way.

You have an interesting definition of "even" if you think Sol's advocating tipping as far as you can the other way. He's saying coming anywhere close to "even" would take metric assloads of money subsidizing renewables, and immediately cutting off the fossils.

I don't know why I am entertaining you NoStache but I would consider no subsidies for anyone fair, which is what I am advocating for.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12073
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1138 on: January 20, 2017, 12:50:34 PM »
The point is that everyone in midern societies is ensuring this will happen; riding.a bicycle or eating a few pounds less meat than one's neighbors is changing the outcome literally in no way for anyone; this is fine if one recognizes that and accepts that their choices are murdering hundreds of others; it's not ok for one to ride a bike "more than they use their car" and think they are accomplishing something. Millions of people live without cars, or even bicycles; and life is about to get even worse for them.  The fact that people in North America even have clothes dryers or cars or imported bicycles or food from other states is the problem.

It's true that one single person on a planet of billions is unlikely to have a serious impact on the world.  It's a big problem, there's no quick fix, and we aren't really treating it seriously yet.

Attempting to reduce your personal ecological footprint on the world will probably not reverse climate change.  That doesn't mean that your actions have no value.  People are social creatures . . . and we have shown the ability to learn from mistakes and alter behavioural patterns based on social whim.  (Look at how behaviour regarding religion, smoking, discrimination, and homosexuality have changed in the west in the last 100 years.)  One person may not have much of an impact, but when many people start to change how they view their own link to the environment there is a noticeable difference.

Your stated view is not just wrong, the bleakness acts as disincentive to even attempt to change things for the better.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5302
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1139 on: January 20, 2017, 12:59:48 PM »
The point is that everyone in midern societies is ensuring this will happen; riding.a bicycle or eating a few pounds less meat than one's neighbors is changing the outcome literally in no way for anyone;

I disagree.  Your personal individual choices can absolutely have a positive impact on other people.

While i absolutely agree with this statement in the general sense, I am unconvinced that it applies to the global imoact of climate change.  There was a time when individual choices could have had an impact upon the devastation that will occur; that time has passed. Now the options range from global shit storm to even worse global shit storm; turning down the temp on every water heater in North America will not move that needle measurably. I'm open to science that disagrees, but I have struggled to find overwhelming evidence that the suggested measures, even if appliedto the larger population, would improve the outcome for even a mdoerate number of persons.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2017, 01:12:51 PM by Metric Mouse »

Unique User

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 502
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1140 on: January 20, 2017, 01:03:54 PM »
In less than 30 minutes both the White House Climate Change webpage and Department of Laborís report on Advancing LGBT Workplace Rights has been taken down.


https://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/climate-change

"Sound energy policy begins with the recognition that we have vast untapped domestic energy reserves right here in America. The Trump Administration will embrace the shale oil and gas revolution to bring jobs and prosperity to millions of Americans. We must take advantage of the estimated $50 trillion in untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves, especially those on federal lands that the American people own. We will use the revenues from energy production to rebuild our roads, schools, bridges and public infrastructure. Less expensive energy will be a big boost to American agriculture, as well."

THis on the new White House website.

Where's my dividend check?

Going into Trump's pocket. 

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7342
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1141 on: January 20, 2017, 01:19:36 PM »
The point is that everyone in midern societies is ensuring this will happen; riding.a bicycle or eating a few pounds less meat than one's neighbors is changing the outcome literally in no way for anyone;

I disagree.  Your personal individual choices can absolutely have a positive impact on other people.

While i absolutely agree with this statement in the general sense, I am unconvinced that it apllies to the global imoact of climate change.  There was a time when individual choices could have had an impact upon the devastation that will occur; that time has passed.

Do you think your personal choices can have value beyond their impact on other people?

I'm a scientist and an atheist, so I won't pretend to believe in some magical fairy tale interpretation of human values.  But I have found useful perspectives on how to be a good person in a variety of religions, and one of the most helpful to me has been Buddhism's five remembrances.  The fifth one is sometimes translated as "I am the owner of my actions and nothing else.  Whatever I choose to do, good or bad, become all that I am."

The remembrances are designed to help a person overcome their natural human faults, like pride and greed.  The fifth one is designed to help a person overcome their natural irresponsibility.  It reminds you that while the universe goes on without you, you are still a little part of it and your choices do matter.  You can't abdicate your existence, and you thus can't avoid being defined by the choices you make.

In the context of this discussion about climate change, your decision to conserve or waste resources still defines who you are as a person, regardless of the impact of that decision on others.  Are you a person who is wasteful?  Are you a person who contributes more to the destruction of our world than is necessary?  Are you a person who prioritizes your own luxury over the suffering of others?

By analogy, Donald Trump is also just one individual.  Do his personal choices also not matter?  If they do matter but yours don't, what has he done to make his choices more meaningful than yours, that you could not also do?

SisterX

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2606
  • Location: 2nd Star on the Right and Straight On 'Til Morning
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1142 on: January 20, 2017, 01:43:21 PM »
The point is that everyone in midern societies is ensuring this will happen; riding.a bicycle or eating a few pounds less meat than one's neighbors is changing the outcome literally in no way for anyone;

I disagree.  Your personal individual choices can absolutely have a positive impact on other people.

While i absolutely agree with this statement in the general sense, I am unconvinced that it applies to the global imoact of climate change.  There was a time when individual choices could have had an impact upon the devastation that will occur; that time has passed. Now the options range from global shit storm to even worse global shit storm; turning down the temp on every water heater in North America will not move that needle measurably. I'm open to science that disagrees, but I have struggled to find overwhelming evidence that the suggested measures, even if appliedto the larger population, would improve the outcome for even a mdoerate number of persons.

My impact individually might not be great, and it will always be more than some starving kid in India's. Fine. But it's about spreading that impact, getting more people to follow a better way. I have an impact on those around me when I'm cheerful or not, why would my reduction in driving not have an impact as well? I might not be able to influence the world but I can sure as hell impact my community.

I'm not going to argue with you any more because you clearly have your mind set. I just want to say that you have a very sad, bleak outlook on life, and I refuse to buy into it.

waltworks

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2811
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1143 on: January 20, 2017, 02:56:58 PM »
Look, it's just mathematically too late for the Nissan Leaf/vegetarian solution (keep in mind, I say this as someone who practically never drives a car and hasn't eaten meat for 25 years). CO2 levels have been rising because of humans since the mid/late 1800s - do you have any idea how much more we generate now than then? It's many orders of magnitude. Cutting our emissions by 50 or 60 or even 90% wouldn't be enough at this point.

Hell, the energy required to run our collective Facebook (and MMM) accounts and data is probably more than all of human civilization used 100 years ago.

We are going to have to hope for a bailout from biotech (rocket fuel trees!) or fusion or something similar. Or we'll have to do some geoengineering and/or adapt to a different climate.

Cutting emissions is still a good idea, of course. It buys time, and it's always dumb to waste resources. But it's not a realistic solution to the greenhouse effect.

-W

adamb

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1144 on: January 20, 2017, 03:21:44 PM »
Nereo, I agree with all your points. The coal issues are very complicated but I am hopeful things will improve.

Same with miles driven many variables but things are going in the right direction for the most part

I just don't see actual clean fossil fuels being more cost-effective than improving solar. The R&D money is better spent bringing costs down on capturing the infinite free energy falling on most of our heads during daylight hours.
I'll belive this when i see it. When renewables are more cost effective, they will be used, period. Until they are, fossil fuels have many advantages, ontop of price, sadly.

New wind and solar power are now cheaper than new natural gas power, significantly cheaper than new coal and nuclear power (but not current, fully depreciated coal power, altho its catching up). Specifically, 9.5 GW of solar, 8 GW of LNG, 8 GW of wind,and 1 GW of nuclear was added in the US last year. Note this is capacity, where wind/solar are at about 40% while LNG and nuclear are in 80-90% (tho most LNG being added going forward are 'peaker' plants, which only run a few hours at a time to meet peak demand, and will not run all the time).

0 GW of coal was added. That is tremendous. The transition is should be encouraged responsibly, not have roadblocks thrown in front of it.

adamb

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1145 on: January 20, 2017, 03:32:40 PM »

Wouldn't this be everyone in developed countries? I mean, I see very few people give up their car, walk everywhere, stop buying anything produced or transported or powered by fossil fuels, switch to renewable power and make sure to offset the footprint of the production and transportation of that power generation with carbon sinks. Or just DOING WITHOUT. I mean... literally no one is doing these things.  Everyone is paying lip service to climate change while actively destroying the planet. I mean, at this point it doesn't matter and everyone is screwed no matter what, so to rag on some people because they drive an SUV is pretty lame - we are all just as guilty as they are, perhaps even more so if we know what we are doing is leading directly to the death and disaster of millions of people, but we just can't stop eating food from half way across the country or using energy to power our laptop to post about how green everyone else should be.

Just because this is true of you and your peer group does not mean it's true everywhere. And I can't even say what I see is because I'm currently in a liberal state. My former red state, people are thinking about these things and talking and making changes as well. I currently know quite a few people who are carless -- with families! My own family has one car which gets used approximate 1-2 times per week, always with more than one person, and there are three adults/drivers who have use of it. (Me, spouse, brother.) We each, individually, put more miles on our bikes each week than we collectively do for the car.
I could list all the other ways we work at being environmentally friendly (giving up the dryer, turning down the heat, turning off lights and electronics, etc.) and we didn't even need to buy fancy new tech for it! You know, we "gave stuff up" the way you're saying people don't. And it's spreading among my peer group! Yes, my life and those of my family are having an impact on the planet. But that doesn't take away from the fact that we're trying to minimize that impact.
On the other hand, why should I tell you about these measures? You think it's useless anyway, and are using that as a shield to ignore your own hypocrisy and avoid taking action. Awesome.
I'm thinking that your dander is up because you are one of those people I was talking about. Go ahead and whine that we're screwed anyway. The rest of us will actually be out there trying to make the world a better place because that's worthwhile. Your defeatist attitude? It is not worthwhile, in any way shape or form. Have fun with it, though! "Here lies MetricMouse, who believed we were all screwed anyway and lived his life in a way that ensured it. RIP."
Turning down the heat, replacing light bulbs with leds, carpooling... really? People are absolutely going to die because of climate change. If anyone thinks that riding a bike built from parts sourced around the world and shipped across oceans using diesel electric engines that spew pollution directly into the ocean, and are then assembled in factories powered by fossil fuels is offsetting the harm that they are creating to others, they are delusional.  I am quite aware of my impact on the environment, and how much it will harm hundreds of people  (just my own impact will be responsible for this, if not greater damage). I don't pretend that sharing a xar or line drying my clothes means I won't cause serious pain to hundreds or thousands of others. To do so is an exercise in cognitive dissonance, especially if one has children, which will add exponentially to one's climate impact.

The point is that everyone in midern societies is ensuring this will happen; riding.a bicycle or eating a few pounds less meat than one's neighbors is changing the outcome literally in no way for anyone; this is fine if one recognizes that and accepts that their choices are murdering hundreds of others; it's not ok for one to ride a bike "more than they use their car" and think they are accomplishing something. Millions of people live without cars, or even bicycles; and life is about to get even worse for them.  The fact that people in North America even have clothes dryers or cars or imported bicycles or food from other states is the problem.

What a terrible, (and uniformed attitude). Obama pushed through massive energy efficiency that have brought tremendous benefits. LED's use 90% less electricity, fridges use 75% less, hell his rule on AC alone brought the entirety of US electricity use down by 1% by itself. These rules mostly had industry support btw.

Know all the coal plants that have closed over the past 10 years? many closed BC natural gas is cheaper, but many also closed and simply were not replaced because the energy produced by them simply wasn't needed anymore!

https://powerforthepeopleva.com/2016/08/30/the-fuel-thats-helping-america-fight-climate-change-isnt-natural-gas/

Guess what, if every car on the road is electric, and all energy production is 0 carbon, it makes a difference! No one wants people to live a spartan life. There is a world of difference in between wasteful and sleeping outside with no amenities.

FYI no one is doing this so they can act smug to you so stop making it about yourself. They are doing it because they want to leave a better future to the next generation. Implying there's no point in trying' doesn't benefit anyone.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12073
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1146 on: January 20, 2017, 05:11:46 PM »
FYI no one is doing this so they can act smug to you so stop making it about yourself.

Yeah, that's just a fringe benefit!  :P

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5302
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1147 on: January 20, 2017, 07:59:30 PM »

Wouldn't this be everyone in developed countries? I mean, I see very few people give up their car, walk everywhere, stop buying anything produced or transported or powered by fossil fuels, switch to renewable power and make sure to offset the footprint of the production and transportation of that power generation with carbon sinks. Or just DOING WITHOUT. I mean... literally no one is doing these things.  Everyone is paying lip service to climate change while actively destroying the planet. I mean, at this point it doesn't matter and everyone is screwed no matter what, so to rag on some people because they drive an SUV is pretty lame - we are all just as guilty as they are, perhaps even more so if we know what we are doing is leading directly to the death and disaster of millions of people, but we just can't stop eating food from half way across the country or using energy to power our laptop to post about how green everyone else should be.

Just because this is true of you and your peer group does not mean it's true everywhere. And I can't even say what I see is because I'm currently in a liberal state. My former red state, people are thinking about these things and talking and making changes as well. I currently know quite a few people who are carless -- with families! My own family has one car which gets used approximate 1-2 times per week, always with more than one person, and there are three adults/drivers who have use of it. (Me, spouse, brother.) We each, individually, put more miles on our bikes each week than we collectively do for the car.
I could list all the other ways we work at being environmentally friendly (giving up the dryer, turning down the heat, turning off lights and electronics, etc.) and we didn't even need to buy fancy new tech for it! You know, we "gave stuff up" the way you're saying people don't. And it's spreading among my peer group! Yes, my life and those of my family are having an impact on the planet. But that doesn't take away from the fact that we're trying to minimize that impact.
On the other hand, why should I tell you about these measures? You think it's useless anyway, and are using that as a shield to ignore your own hypocrisy and avoid taking action. Awesome.
I'm thinking that your dander is up because you are one of those people I was talking about. Go ahead and whine that we're screwed anyway. The rest of us will actually be out there trying to make the world a better place because that's worthwhile. Your defeatist attitude? It is not worthwhile, in any way shape or form. Have fun with it, though! "Here lies MetricMouse, who believed we were all screwed anyway and lived his life in a way that ensured it. RIP."
Turning down the heat, replacing light bulbs with leds, carpooling... really? People are absolutely going to die because of climate change. If anyone thinks that riding a bike built from parts sourced around the world and shipped across oceans using diesel electric engines that spew pollution directly into the ocean, and are then assembled in factories powered by fossil fuels is offsetting the harm that they are creating to others, they are delusional.  I am quite aware of my impact on the environment, and how much it will harm hundreds of people  (just my own impact will be responsible for this, if not greater damage). I don't pretend that sharing a xar or line drying my clothes means I won't cause serious pain to hundreds or thousands of others. To do so is an exercise in cognitive dissonance, especially if one has children, which will add exponentially to one's climate impact.

The point is that everyone in midern societies is ensuring this will happen; riding.a bicycle or eating a few pounds less meat than one's neighbors is changing the outcome literally in no way for anyone; this is fine if one recognizes that and accepts that their choices are murdering hundreds of others; it's not ok for one to ride a bike "more than they use their car" and think they are accomplishing something. Millions of people live without cars, or even bicycles; and life is about to get even worse for them.  The fact that people in North America even have clothes dryers or cars or imported bicycles or food from other states is the problem.

What a terrible, (and uniformed attitude). Obama pushed through massive energy efficiency that have brought tremendous benefits. LED's use 90% less electricity, fridges use 75% less, hell his rule on AC alone brought the entirety of US electricity use down by 1% by itself. These rules mostly had industry support btw.

Know all the coal plants that have closed over the past 10 years? many closed BC natural gas is cheaper, but many also closed and simply were not replaced because the energy produced by them simply wasn't needed anymore!

https://powerforthepeopleva.com/2016/08/30/the-fuel-thats-helping-america-fight-climate-change-isnt-natural-gas/

Guess what, if every car on the road is electric, and all energy production is 0 carbon, it makes a difference! No one wants people to live a spartan life. There is a world of difference in between wasteful and sleeping outside with no amenities.

FYI no one is doing this so they can act smug to you so stop making it about yourself. They are doing it because they want to leave a better future to the next generation. Implying there's no point in trying' doesn't benefit anyone.

How'd that work out for agw? Still happening? Still getting worse every day? Still no real plans to head off the worst of the effects? Let me know when that changes.

I mean, if people want to think that driving an electric car made from precious metals mined halfway around the world and formed from processed  petroleum products or that eating more vegetables is going to save lives or mitigate the effects of climate change for the poorest people on the planet, they are welcome to. They are wrong, but welcome to think whatever they want. If they are doing it to feel better about themselves while effecting zero real change, that's cool too: just be informed and honest about it.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2017, 06:11:59 AM by Metric Mouse »

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7342
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1148 on: January 20, 2017, 11:59:26 PM »
Today Trump has apparently banned all Department of Interior agencies from using Twitter anymore.

I'm not even sure what to say to that.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5302
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1149 on: January 21, 2017, 06:14:10 AM »
Today Trump has apparently banned all Department of Interior agencies from using Twitter anymore.

I'm not even sure what to say to that.
Did he think they were stealing his limelight? I can't say that I've ever read a tweet from any Dept. Of Interior agency, so I guess I am personally unaffected.