What do you believe about climate change?

[DoubleDown]

Americans (and Torbjørn Jagland in the Nobel Price Comittee) are probably the only ones who care about Al Gore. The rest of the world listen to, and debate, what scientists say. If the subject of this debate has changed to what American politicians have said about climate change; should I start translating and arguing about quotes from Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, Faroese, Greenlandic, and German politicians too? Maybe someone on the forum could give insight into the details of the opinions of Malaysian politicians? Or would that be equally irrelevant to you, as your former vise president is to me?

Well, I NEVER! My American-made monocle just fell out of my eye into my champagne glass.

[Tyson]

By applying a slight nudge via carbon tax, you can create a capitalist environment where people are working towards reduced carbon production.

Relevant discussion of how this is already working:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/09/sunniest-climate-change-story-ever-read.html

For human to wean ourselves off carbon-emitting fossil fuel, we will have to use some combination of edict and invention — there is no other plausible way around it. The task before the world is best envisioned not as a singular event but as two distinct but interrelated revolutions, one in political willpower and the other in technological innovation. It has taken a long time for each to materialize, in part because the absence of one has compounded the difficulty of the other. It is extremely hard to force a shift to clean energy when dirty energy is much cheaper, and it is extremely hard to achieve economies of scale in new energy technologies when the political system has not yet nudged you to do so.

Basically, the author is arguing that the past five years have seen dramatic improvements in global carbon controls, largely due to the exact market forces and technological salvation mentioned above, though those things came about as a result of a little government kickstarting.

It's nice to see a news report about climate change that isn't all doom and gloom.

Back on the doom and gloom front, US glaciers are taking an absolute beating this year in the lower 48.  Not enough snow last winter and the hottest summer on record combined to cause faster glacier shrinking than ever before observed.  We only started looking in the 1950s, but it's still a little worrisome.

And here in Colorado it's having a direct impact on businesses.  Specifically the ski resorts.  Fewer ski-able days means less revenue. 

[Fishindude]

Meanwhile, the last two winters in my area of the midwest have been the hardest, longest we've seen for quite a while.
Can't remember anytime in recent years we've had so much ice on the lakes?

I feel like we humans give ourselves a little too much credit.
We don't play as big of a role in this whole thing as we'd like to believe.

[gaja]

Like the Nordic countries, where socialist parties have had the majority for many years. Never make or are able to keep any money (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway).

It is interesting how labels get applied.  E.g., from that wiki article:

"The Government Pension Fund (Norwegian: Statens pensjonsfond Utland, SPU) is a fund into which the surplus wealth produced by Norwegian petroleum income is deposited. The fund changed name in January 2006 from its previous name, The Petroleum Fund of Norway. The fund is commonly referred to as The Oil Fund (Norwegian: Oljefondet)."
and
"The Government Pension Fund – Norway (Norwegian: Statens pensjonsfond Norge, SPN) ... is instructed to invest in domestic companies on the stock market, predominantly on Oslo Stock Exchange. Due to this, the Government Pension Fund – Norway is a key stock owner in many large Norwegian companies."

In other contexts, the items above could be framed as
"profiting from global warming"
and
"privatizing social security"
...neither of which any self-respecting US socialist would support.

Eh, we are just selling the stuff to you guys. Not our problem that you choose to burn it and cause global warming. (I know. That conundrum is heavily debated. And one of the reasons we are putting so much money into that fund now; we are just waiting for oil to be banned. Action is also taken to divest in fossil fuel industries and increase investments in green industries.)

I do not see the "privatizing social security" part. The money has to be invested somewhere. Public ownership is one of the key aspects of socialism. We just do it via shares. In some of the companies, there is part private ownership, in others there is only one share.

[music lover]

By applying a slight nudge via carbon tax, you can create a capitalist environment where people are working towards reduced carbon production.

Relevant discussion of how this is already working:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/09/sunniest-climate-change-story-ever-read.html

For human to wean ourselves off carbon-emitting fossil fuel, we will have to use some combination of edict and invention — there is no other plausible way around it. The task before the world is best envisioned not as a singular event but as two distinct but interrelated revolutions, one in political willpower and the other in technological innovation. It has taken a long time for each to materialize, in part because the absence of one has compounded the difficulty of the other. It is extremely hard to force a shift to clean energy when dirty energy is much cheaper, and it is extremely hard to achieve economies of scale in new energy technologies when the political system has not yet nudged you to do so.

Basically, the author is arguing that the past five years have seen dramatic improvements in global carbon controls, largely due to the exact market forces and technological salvation mentioned above, though those things came about as a result of a little government kickstarting.

It's nice to see a news report about climate change that isn't all doom and gloom.

Back on the doom and gloom front, US glaciers are taking an absolute beating this year in the lower 48.  Not enough snow last winter and the hottest summer on record combined to cause faster glacier shrinking than ever before observed.  We only started looking in the 1950s, but it's still a little worrisome.

And here in Colorado it's having a direct impact on businesses.  Specifically the ski resorts.  Fewer ski-able days means less revenue.

I guess fewer ski-able days would affect revenue, but that's not what happened. There were MORE ski-able days and revenues were up:

"Colorado ski resorts broke a visitation record in 2013-14, thanks to an early start, a late finish, a drought in California and, of course, steady snowfall all season.

The state's 25 ski areas logged 12.6 million visits, up 10 percent from last year — the strongest year-over-year surge in recent history and an 8 percent increase over the five-year average. The 2013-14 season is now the benchmark, unseating the 12.56 million high set in 2006-07."

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_25950508/colorado-skier-visits-surge-12-6m-2013-14

[GuitarStv]

Local weather is not really a great indicator of global climate changes.  It's called climate change because weather will be different.  Warming in some areas can cause rain where there was no rain before, or drought where there used to be plenty of water.  That's why saying "We had a cold winter, hah, global warming is a hoax!" is so silly.

[acroy]

I believe the majority climate change information is false or cherry-picked, and the rest is political/power/money driven. Very frustrating, being a semi-intelligent engineer and all, when the 'scientists' have proven themselves incorrect and their studies slanted so many times.

[MDM]

I do not see the "privatizing social security" part. The money has to be invested somewhere. Public ownership is one of the key aspects of socialism. We just do it via shares. In some of the companies, there is part private ownership, in others there is only one share.

Assuming for the sake of this discussion that "Democrat = socialist" (it's at least closer than "Republican = socialist") in the US, a common Democrat position (emphasis added) is "...strongly opposed to handing Social Security over to Wall Street, raising the retirement age, or cutting benefit levels for seniors who have contributed to Social Security throughout their working years. Instead, he believes that we can improve the solvency of Social Security by asking the wealthiest Americans to contribute to the program the same share of their income as the middle class."

In other words, while "Norwegian socialists" see no problem with investing government funds in stocks, that concept is anathema to "US socialists."  Not saying which is right or wrong, just noting that labels can be misconstrued.

[gaja]

I do not see the "privatizing social security" part. The money has to be invested somewhere. Public ownership is one of the key aspects of socialism. We just do it via shares. In some of the companies, there is part private ownership, in others there is only one share.

Assuming for the sake of this discussion that "Democrat = socialist" (it's at least closer than "Republican = socialist") in the US, a common Democrat position (emphasis added) is "...strongly opposed to handing Social Security over to Wall Street, raising the retirement age, or cutting benefit levels for seniors who have contributed to Social Security throughout their working years. Instead, he believes that we can improve the solvency of Social Security by asking the wealthiest Americans to contribute to the program the same share of their income as the middle class."

In other words, while "Norwegian socialists" see no problem with investing government funds in stocks, that concept is anathema to "US socialists."  Not saying which is right or wrong, just noting that labels can be misconstrued.

There is a big difference: We have a net surplus, you have debt. We have to put the money somewhere, and it can't all stay inland, because of the Dutch disease (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease). It is not only stock, an increasing part is invested in property abroad. The point of the Pension Fund Foreign Assets is to live of the surplus(4%-rule). But we still keep the domestic pension fund where the wealthiest have to contribute the same share of their income as the middle class. This is where todays pensions come from.

Our right wing politicians start slightly left of your Democrats. And then we keep on moving towards the left until we reach the Left wing socialists (Sosialistisk venstreparti), Red (Rødt) and the Communist party (NKP).

[GuitarStv]

I do not see the "privatizing social security" part. The money has to be invested somewhere. Public ownership is one of the key aspects of socialism. We just do it via shares. In some of the companies, there is part private ownership, in others there is only one share.

Assuming for the sake of this discussion that "Democrat = socialist" (it's at least closer than "Republican = socialist") in the US, a common Democrat position (emphasis added) is "...strongly opposed to handing Social Security over to Wall Street, raising the retirement age, or cutting benefit levels for seniors who have contributed to Social Security throughout their working years. Instead, he believes that we can improve the solvency of Social Security by asking the wealthiest Americans to contribute to the program the same share of their income as the middle class."

In other words, while "Norwegian socialists" see no problem with investing government funds in stocks, that concept is anathema to "US socialists."  Not saying which is right or wrong, just noting that labels can be misconstrued.

There is a big difference: We have a net surplus, you have debt. We have to put the money somewhere, and it can't all stay inland, because of the Dutch disease (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease). It is not only stock, an increasing part is invested in property abroad. The point of the Pension Fund Foreign Assets is to live of the surplus(4%-rule). But we still keep the domestic pension fund where the wealthiest have to contribute the same share of their income as the middle class. This is where todays pensions come from.

Our right wing politicians start slightly left of your Democrats. And then we keep on moving towards the left until we reach the Left wing socialists (Sosialistisk venstreparti), Red (Rødt) and the Communist party (NKP).

It's almost like you're saying that people who believe strongly in the rampant and unchecked pursuit of greed are the wrong folks to have running a country.

[Chris22]

I do not see the "privatizing social security" part. The money has to be invested somewhere. Public ownership is one of the key aspects of socialism. We just do it via shares. In some of the companies, there is part private ownership, in others there is only one share.

Assuming for the sake of this discussion that "Democrat = socialist" (it's at least closer than "Republican = socialist") in the US, a common Democrat position (emphasis added) is "...strongly opposed to handing Social Security over to Wall Street, raising the retirement age, or cutting benefit levels for seniors who have contributed to Social Security throughout their working years. Instead, he believes that we can improve the solvency of Social Security by asking the wealthiest Americans to contribute to the program the same share of their income as the middle class."

In other words, while "Norwegian socialists" see no problem with investing government funds in stocks, that concept is anathema to "US socialists."  Not saying which is right or wrong, just noting that labels can be misconstrued.

There is a big difference: We have a net surplus, you have debt. We have to put the money somewhere, and it can't all stay inland, because of the Dutch disease (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease). It is not only stock, an increasing part is invested in property abroad. The point of the Pension Fund Foreign Assets is to live of the surplus(4%-rule). But we still keep the domestic pension fund where the wealthiest have to contribute the same share of their income as the middle class. This is where todays pensions come from.

Our right wing politicians start slightly left of your Democrats. And then we keep on moving towards the left until we reach the Left wing socialists (Sosialistisk venstreparti), Red (Rødt) and the Communist party (NKP).

OTOH, you have a pretty small, relatively homogeneous (race and geographically) population.  A quick Google tells me that Norway has +/- 5M people.  Chicagoland (Chicago + surrounding suburbs) has almost 10M.  The US has almost 320M.  So maybe what works in Norway doesn't work when you scale it up by a factor of 64.

[sol]

The 2013-14 season is now the benchmark, unseating the 12.56 million high set in 2006-07."

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_25950508/colorado-skier-visits-surge-12-6m-2013-14

Music lover!  You posted a link to support one of your assertions, I'm so proud of you!  Consider doing that for the preceding ten times you've been directly asked to cite a source?

2013/14 was a decent snow year here in the northwest, too, thanks to some late season storms that saved us.  Not as good as the preceding year.  Unfortunately it was also a warmer than average summer so it all melted off.

The problem with ski resorts is that they are typically located as close to low altitude cities as possible, which means they are more sensitive to changes in temperature than most places.  One degree of warming doesn't change much at the mountain top or the valley bottom, but if it moves the snow line up 500 feet the ski resorts suffer because they're located right there.

[gaja]

I do not see the "privatizing social security" part. The money has to be invested somewhere. Public ownership is one of the key aspects of socialism. We just do it via shares. In some of the companies, there is part private ownership, in others there is only one share.

Assuming for the sake of this discussion that "Democrat = socialist" (it's at least closer than "Republican = socialist") in the US, a common Democrat position (emphasis added) is "...strongly opposed to handing Social Security over to Wall Street, raising the retirement age, or cutting benefit levels for seniors who have contributed to Social Security throughout their working years. Instead, he believes that we can improve the solvency of Social Security by asking the wealthiest Americans to contribute to the program the same share of their income as the middle class."

In other words, while "Norwegian socialists" see no problem with investing government funds in stocks, that concept is anathema to "US socialists."  Not saying which is right or wrong, just noting that labels can be misconstrued.

There is a big difference: We have a net surplus, you have debt. We have to put the money somewhere, and it can't all stay inland, because of the Dutch disease (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease). It is not only stock, an increasing part is invested in property abroad. The point of the Pension Fund Foreign Assets is to live of the surplus(4%-rule). But we still keep the domestic pension fund where the wealthiest have to contribute the same share of their income as the middle class. This is where todays pensions come from.

Our right wing politicians start slightly left of your Democrats. And then we keep on moving towards the left until we reach the Left wing socialists (Sosialistisk venstreparti), Red (Rødt) and the Communist party (NKP).

OTOH, you have a pretty small, relatively homogeneous (race and geographically) population.  A quick Google tells me that Norway has +/- 5M people.  Chicagoland (Chicago + surrounding suburbs) has almost 10M.  The US has almost 320M.  So maybe what works in Norway doesn't work when you scale it up by a factor of 64.

I'm not telling you that our way will work for you. I'm just saying that our way works for us. In contrast to the speakers earlier in the thread who say socialism never works anywhere.

As to geography, that is a myth. The area isn't large (although we can fit Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourgh and Denmark into the northermost regions), but the distances are. North to south is about the same distance as Florida-North Dakota. The climate is vastly different in the south and north, coast and inland. Keeping the entire thing populated is a political goal, so even though most live in the south, a lot is done on creating jobs and maintaining/building infrastructure all over the place.

[TheOldestYoungMan]

I didn't see where I said it never works anywhere.  Read that book I linked.  Don't be so defensive, sheesh.

[MDM]

There is a big difference: We have a net surplus, you have debt. We have to put the money somewhere....

Yes, the US Republican answer to that would be "cut taxes".  The source of much of the surplus (oil production) takes us back to the original discussion, and around we go....

But we still keep the domestic pension fund where the wealthiest have to contribute the same share of their income as the middle class.

Which is another way of saying "the middle class have to contribute the same share of their income as the wealthiest" - again something no US Democrat would be caught dead saying....

[bacchi]

I didn't see where I said it never works anywhere.  Read that book I linked.  Don't be so defensive, sheesh.

I don't hate socialism, it just doesn't work. 

???

[ender]

I'm not telling you that our way will work for you. I'm just saying that our way works for us. In contrast to the speakers earlier in the thread who say socialism never works anywhere.

As to geography, that is a myth. The area isn't large (although we can fit Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourgh and Denmark into the northermost regions), but the distances are. North to south is about the same distance as Florida-North Dakota. The climate is vastly different in the south and north, coast and inland. Keeping the entire thing populated is a political goal, so even though most live in the south, a lot is done on creating jobs and maintaining/building infrastructure all over the place.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/11/scandinavia-isnt-a-socialist-paradise/

[Dicey]

It's hot here and we have no water. Climate Change? I believe the more accurate term is Climate Changed. Done deal.

The heat is for sure!  I'm sweating outside in CA as I write this.  But i think the current drought in CA is not necessarily attributable to human-induced climate change.  There's a paleoclimatologist, Lynn Ingram, who's done some work and concluded that the 20th century in CA was wetter than normal.  That said, the current drought is consistent with predictions of climate change.  Or it could just be reversion to a longer term mean.  Or it could be both. 

Your comment sounds so final, so sure of itself.  I too accept the scientific conclusion of human-induced climate change.  My point is simply that everyone, on all sides, always needs to keep an open mind.  It is so much harder with things that become politicized, like climate change.  Everyone hardens up.  It's human nature to close your mind to an alternative explanation once you find a particular explanation that fits.

Perhaps I'm too wishy-washy.  I believe the current drought in CA may or may not be attributable to human-induced climate change!

I am not sure of myself, I'm scared spitless. DH works for our local water district. They own two huge lake reservoirs, Comanche and Pardee, near Jackson, CA. There are developed campgrounds there. DH and I went there for a weekend camping getaway last October. We walked for hours and covered miles and miles of bone-dry lakebed. Comanche serves the farming industry and Pardee serves the population of the greater East Bay. It is very scary shit. My brother lives in Folsom, CA. After Thanksgiving. we tromped around the exposed lakebed, shocked at the lack of water. Structures that were flooded when the lake was created are now standing in what looks like arid desert wasteland. Scary shit. Who cares if it's climate or weather, man made or otherwise? There is no friggin' water! If it doesn't rain buckets this year (which will likely cause flooding because the groundwater is so depleted) we are really up shit creek. As CA provides food for a while lotta people, hell yes, we should all be concerned.

[brainfart]

As long as you guys keep indiscriminately labeling everyone as "socialist" who is running their country slightly different than the US you will never figure it out. Neither France, Norway, Germany or any other European country is socialist in the sense the former USSR was.

[brainfart]

:D

[Dicey]

You guys are funny!

[marty998]

I'm feeling left right out of this recent discussion :)
_______________

Music Lover, bless you for your steadfast beliefs. How about you keep blowing up your wallet, and we'll keep spending less on electricity, cars and the like.
_______________

I hold out hope that one day a solution will be found. The world came together pretty quickly to eliminate CFCs once the hole in the ozone layer was discovered, and I'm sure it can do it again for any other looming catastrophe.

[Bob W]

OK ---- I totally give up!   You non believers have won me over.    I will no longer believe in climate change.   I will now file it under the "who gives a shit" category and move on with my pathetic life.   Life is just too short to dance with ugly women. 

[choppingwood]

OK ---- I totally give up!   You non believers have won me over.    I will no longer believe in climate change.   I will now file it under the "who gives a shit" category and move on with my pathetic life.   Life is just too short to dance with ugly women.

But what the heck does that have to do with socialism?

Oh, I get it. The thread is about climate change, not socialism. Don't give up, Bob W. I believe. Except the last bit. But that would be off topic.

[TheOldestYoungMan]

As long as you guys keep indiscriminately labeling everyone as "socialist" who is running their country slightly different than the US you will never figure it out. Neither France, Norway, Germany or any other European country is socialist in the sense the former USSR was.

Keep telling yourself that comrade!

Hehe.

I didn't see where I said it never works anywhere.  Read that book I linked.  Don't be so defensive, sheesh.

I don't hate socialism, it just doesn't work. 

???

Those two statements are not the same.  I think that's pretty clear.  Read the book, it makes the argument far better than I could possibly do in an excessively rambling blog post.

[TrulyStashin]

Sol, thanks for your outstanding posts.

What's missing here is any data about what capitalists think about climate change.  Are business leaders worried about it?  If so, why?

Yes, yes they are.  Because it threatens their business models and the ability of their customers to buy their products. 

I've worked on these issues for the past 7 years.  In 2011 (edit:  it was late Nov. 2010), at a panel discussion featuring the CEO's of Duke Energy (Jim Rogers), Dow Chemical (Andrew Liveris), Coca Cola (Muhtar Kent), and FEMSA (Carlos Salazar), I listened as all four men adamantly asserted that AGW was a serious threat to business and argued for a carbon tax as a method of driving corporate innovation and efficiency.  They were at a business summit happening alongside the UNFCC's annual COP (it was COP 15).  Their goal was to urge the COP delegates to reach a binding accord on climate change. BECAUSE IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR BUSINESS.

I could blow up this thread with links to statements, speeches, resolutions, etc from corporate leaders on this issue.  Here are a few:

Microsoft, Disney & Shell (yes, Shell) have an internal carbon tax -- http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/carbon-emissions-tax-microsoft-disney-shell

Paul Polman, CEO of Unilever, on climate change and the role of business http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-polman/climate-change-do-we-real_b_7512022.html

Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, tells climate change deniers to sell Apple stock https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksMBqjUB6W4

Muhtar Kent, CEO of Coca Cola, on climate change and the risk to business http://www.marketplace.org/topics/economy/mid-day-update/podcast-interview-coca-cola-ceo-muhtar-kent

The Prince of Wales Corporate Leader's Group on Climate Change has, since 2012, issued an annual communique on climate change which hundreds of the world's largest corporation have signed onto as evidence of their support for climate change policies (both mitigation and adaptation).  164 corporations have signed on to the carbon price communique, supporting a price on CO2 as a free market mechanism to mitigate GHG emissions. http://www.climatecommuniques.com/

Finally, one of my personal favorites... Richard Branson on climate:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YhUVIoanX0

These are, arguably, the world's most prominent capitalists.  Their first goal is to build a profitable business.  And they all integrate sustainability/ climate strategies into their business strategies because it is good for business.

Capitalists care about climate change, very much.

[GuitarStv]

SOME Capitalists care about climate change, very much.

If they all did, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[Bob W]

Sol, thanks for your outstanding posts.

What's missing here is any data about what capitalists think about climate change.  Are business leaders worried about it?  If so, why?

Yes, yes they are.  Because it threatens their business models and the ability of their customers to buy their products. 

I've worked on these issues for the past 7 years.  In 2011 (edit:  it was late Nov. 2010), at a panel discussion featuring the CEO's of Duke Energy (Jim Rogers), Dow Chemical (Andrew Liveris), Coca Cola (Muhtar Kent), and FEMSA (Carlos Salazar), I listened as all four men adamantly asserted that AGW was a serious threat to business and argued for a carbon tax as a method of driving corporate innovation and efficiency.  They were at a business summit happening alongside the UNFCC's annual COP (it was COP 15).  Their goal was to urge the COP delegates to reach a binding accord on climate change. BECAUSE IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR BUSINESS.

I could blow up this thread with links to statements, speeches, resolutions, etc from corporate leaders on this issue.  Here are a few:

Microsoft, Disney & Shell (yes, Shell) have an internal carbon tax -- http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/carbon-emissions-tax-microsoft-disney-shell

Paul Polman, CEO of Unilever, on climate change and the role of business http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-polman/climate-change-do-we-real_b_7512022.html

Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, tells climate change deniers to sell Apple stock https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksMBqjUB6W4

Muhtar Kent, CEO of Coca Cola, on climate change and the risk to business http://www.marketplace.org/topics/economy/mid-day-update/podcast-interview-coca-cola-ceo-muhtar-kent

The Prince of Wales Corporate Leader's Group on Climate Change has, since 2012, issued an annual communique on climate change which hundreds of the world's largest corporation have signed onto as evidence of their support for climate change policies (both mitigation and adaptation).  164 corporations have signed on to the carbon price communique, supporting a price on CO2 as a free market mechanism to mitigate GHG emissions. http://www.climatecommuniques.com/

Finally, one of my personal favorites... Richard Branson on climate:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YhUVIoanX0

These are, arguably, the world's most prominent capitalists.  Their first goal is to build a profitable business.  And they all integrate sustainability/ climate strategies into their business strategies because it is good for business.

Capitalists care about climate change, very much.

Wow!   I guess that also accounts for the US military planning around climate change so much as well. 

 “The ice doesn’t care about politics or Democrats and Republicans; it just melts.”   http://www.planetexperts.com/us-military-on-climate-change-the-ice-doesnt-care-about-politics/

I guess after consideration I am now switching back and again believe in climate change.  Flip flopped in 1 hour.  A new record.   I probably will still keep it in the "I don't give a shit" category though as my input appears to mean nothing and I still have to live my pathetic life.   Damn socialists,  damn capitalists!

[TheOldestYoungMan]

Aye, there's also the money they put into the research and the boards of directors of legitimate environmental groups tend to share board members with major players in industry.

The wealthy elite want to know where to buy future beachfront property.  They didn't get rich by waiting for the price to peak to buy.

[sol]

I think most corporate commitment to climate change is lip service.  Most businesses are not significantly disrupted by minor warming trends.

There are exceptions, like ski resorts and fisheries and agriculture and tourism in the Maldives.  But generally speaking, I think global brands embrace climate change solely because the public embraces climate change and it's good PR for them to follow suit.

That will change over time, as more and more industries are directly impacted, but it will mostly be a slow and gradual shift unless something unexpected happens.

Heck, some industries should even benefit from climate change.  There are always winners and losers in every transition.

[Bob W]

I think most corporate commitment to climate change is lip service.  Most businesses are not significantly disrupted by minor warming trends.

There are exceptions, like ski resorts and fisheries and agriculture and tourism in the Maldives.  But generally speaking, I think global brands embrace climate change solely because the public embraces climate change and it's good PR for them to follow suit.

That will change over time, as more and more industries are directly impacted, but it will mostly be a slow and gradual shift unless something unexpected happens.

Heck, some industries should even benefit from climate change.  There are always winners and losers in every transition.

It appears our lake vacation and retirement community has been greatly impacted by climate variations the last several years.   This year it rained more than ever recorded for June.   The year before it was too cold.  And for a couple of years in a row the temp hovered around 100-105 for 6 weeks.    It has been a bad decade here every since the great recession.   

Our area has experienced more record lows and highs,  more record droughts and rains that ever in the last 8 years.   

[StashDaddy]

Shell actually benefits from climate change hysteria because they get to displace coal with natural gas in our electricity grid.

[Chris22]

I think most corporate commitment to climate change is lip service.  Most businesses are not significantly disrupted by minor warming trends.

There are exceptions, like ski resorts and fisheries and agriculture and tourism in the Maldives.  But generally speaking, I think global brands embrace climate change solely because the public embraces climate change and it's good PR for them to follow suit.

That will change over time, as more and more industries are directly impacted, but it will mostly be a slow and gradual shift unless something unexpected happens.

Heck, some industries should even benefit from climate change.  There are always winners and losers in every transition.

It appears our lake vacation and retirement community has been greatly impacted by climate variations the last several years.   This year it rained more than ever recorded for June.   The year before it was too cold.  And for a couple of years in a row the temp hovered around 100-105 for 6 weeks.    It has been a bad decade here every since the great recession.   

Our area has experienced more record lows and highs,  more record droughts and rains that ever in the last 8 years.

But "local weather is not climate", right?  That's what we're told, unless, of course, it helps make the case for AGW...

[GuitarStv]

I think most corporate commitment to climate change is lip service.  Most businesses are not significantly disrupted by minor warming trends.

There are exceptions, like ski resorts and fisheries and agriculture and tourism in the Maldives.  But generally speaking, I think global brands embrace climate change solely because the public embraces climate change and it's good PR for them to follow suit.

That will change over time, as more and more industries are directly impacted, but it will mostly be a slow and gradual shift unless something unexpected happens.

Heck, some industries should even benefit from climate change.  There are always winners and losers in every transition.

It appears our lake vacation and retirement community has been greatly impacted by climate variations the last several years.   This year it rained more than ever recorded for June.   The year before it was too cold.  And for a couple of years in a row the temp hovered around 100-105 for 6 weeks.    It has been a bad decade here every since the great recession.   

Our area has experienced more record lows and highs,  more record droughts and rains that ever in the last 8 years.

But "local weather is not climate", right?  That's what we're told, unless, of course, it helps make the case for AGW...

Local weather isn't indicative of world climate.  Unusual changes in local weather though may be a symptom though.  This is one of the predicted effects of climate change.

[dramaman]

I think most corporate commitment to climate change is lip service.  Most businesses are not significantly disrupted by minor warming trends.

There are exceptions, like ski resorts and fisheries and agriculture and tourism in the Maldives.  But generally speaking, I think global brands embrace climate change solely because the public embraces climate change and it's good PR for them to follow suit.

That will change over time, as more and more industries are directly impacted, but it will mostly be a slow and gradual shift unless something unexpected happens.

Heck, some industries should even benefit from climate change.  There are always winners and losers in every transition.

A good bellwether is the insurance industry. My understanding is that they are very concerned about climate change and how it could impact future payouts such that it is getting added into their risk calculations.

[gobius]

I think most corporate commitment to climate change is lip service.  Most businesses are not significantly disrupted by minor warming trends.

There are exceptions, like ski resorts and fisheries and agriculture and tourism in the Maldives.  But generally speaking, I think global brands embrace climate change solely because the public embraces climate change and it's good PR for them to follow suit.

That will change over time, as more and more industries are directly impacted, but it will mostly be a slow and gradual shift unless something unexpected happens.

Heck, some industries should even benefit from climate change.  There are always winners and losers in every transition.

A good bellwether is the insurance industry. My understanding is that they are very concerned about climate change and how it could impact future payouts such that it is getting added into their risk calculations.

I remember reading about a large German insurance company (Munich Re?) doing that.

[Chris22]

I think most corporate commitment to climate change is lip service.  Most businesses are not significantly disrupted by minor warming trends.

There are exceptions, like ski resorts and fisheries and agriculture and tourism in the Maldives.  But generally speaking, I think global brands embrace climate change solely because the public embraces climate change and it's good PR for them to follow suit.

That will change over time, as more and more industries are directly impacted, but it will mostly be a slow and gradual shift unless something unexpected happens.

Heck, some industries should even benefit from climate change.  There are always winners and losers in every transition.

It appears our lake vacation and retirement community has been greatly impacted by climate variations the last several years.   This year it rained more than ever recorded for June.   The year before it was too cold.  And for a couple of years in a row the temp hovered around 100-105 for 6 weeks.    It has been a bad decade here every since the great recession.   

Our area has experienced more record lows and highs,  more record droughts and rains that ever in the last 8 years.

But "local weather is not climate", right?  That's what we're told, unless, of course, it helps make the case for AGW...

Local weather isn't indicative of world climate.  Unusual changes in local weather though may be a symptom though.  This is one of the predicted effects of climate change.

What ISN'T a predicted effect of climate change?  Because I've heard:

-more hurricanes
-less hurricanes
-more snow
-less snow
-more storms
-more drought

etc etc as all "proof" of AGW.  I took a dump yesterday morning before work.  GLOBAL WARMING!  I didn't take a dump this morning.  GLOBAL WARMING!

[TheOldestYoungMan]

But "local weather is not climate", right?  That's what we're told, unless, of course, it helps make the case for AGW...

Local weather isn't indicative of world climate.  Unusual changes in local weather though may be a symptom though.  This is one of the predicted effects of climate change.
[/quote]

This right here, not science.  This is a talking point designed to manipulate the conversation.  Weather is the instantaneous condition, climate is the average.  It's a billion degrees outside today (weather).  It's always a billion degrees outside (climate).  But because the truth is that it really isn't going to cause all that much harm, and that isn't going to let people who want a rule change (for their benefit) scare people into accepting a rule change, the narrative needs to be able to say AGW will cause massive damage from weather, but weather that isn't causing massive damage isn't a result of AGW.

If you don't see the conflict between those two assertions, it's because you aren't looking.  If AGW is happening (premise I have seen enough evidence on for me to accept), then it impacts all weather.  That some of the weather still isn't that bad, well, that's because AGW isn't that big of a deal.  It has the potential to be a very big deal (in the same way AI or asteroids or pickyourpersonalalarmist cause), but proponents of that theory do themselves a lot of harm by using this bullshit "weather isn't climate" condescension.  Explain what you're actually talking about, use your words, there aren't bonus points for concise, misleading breakdowns of fundamental concepts.

[StashDaddy]

What ISN'T a predicted effect of climate change?

CO2 does everything.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vdl3TRxv0c

[MoonShadow]

Wow.  This is a dangerous topic on this forum.  I've seen more rational, polite and nuanced conversations on this topic on Permies.com.  I've long thought that the arguments and beliefs that surround this topic have reached a level comparable to religions.  The arguing over dancing on the head of a pin that has occurred in this thread is truly epic.  I was banned for three days shortly after starting this thread, with no justifications offered.  I can think of a rule or two that I have come a bit close to lately, but I suspect that I got it for starting this thread; even though it wasn't locked when I got back.  I went out of my way to ask permission from the mod that locked the last thread, and if it was a taboo subject here.  I was told that nothing is taboo here.  I disagree, this one is definitely taboo.  In fairness, I'm going to post what I believe, and it is a belief for all of us, because the Earth's climate is such a complex system that there might be,at most, 100 people on Earth with both the access to enough actual data, and the skillset to interpret that data, that they can come to a scientificly defensible conclusion.  Exactly zero frequent this forum, I'd guess; so the rest of us are choosing who we trust more based upon what we have been taught to believe.

I believe the following things, none of which I can prove independently, so I won't bother trying to link to someone else's opinions on the topic.

1) The Earth is in a long term warming trend.

2) The Earth is a closed environmental system; i.e., we all live in a giant terrarium.

3) The most stable (lowest energy) form of elemental carbon, oxygen and hydrogen is either carbon-dioxide or water; so we can always expect to see a large amount of these elements in these forms.

4) Carbon-dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

5) Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas.

6) Nitrogen is also a greenhouse gas, but is largely stable in our current environment.

7) Oxygen is not a greenhouse gas, which is where the variation in 'greenhouse gases' comes into play.

8) Human activity has contributed to an increase in greenhouse gases into the present atmosphere, mostly via the combustion of fossil fuels; but also as a result of agriculture generally.

9) Variations in the solar insolation (net amount of solar radiation), due to cycles of the Sun itself, variations in Earth's orbit that bring us closer to or farther from the Sun, and variations in the solar attenuation of the upper atmosphere also have a significant effect in the net effect of global climate changes. (See the Year Without a Summer on Wikipedia)

10) The 'greenhouse effect' of both atmospheric gases and water vapor (mostly visable clouds) DOES NOT warm the Earth's surface evenly.  The majority of net warming would be concentrated near the poles due to atmospheric refraction of infrared radiation.

11) Increases in the concentration of CO2 in the immediate area of plantlife has measurable effects upon both the growth rate of plant mass (carbon capture) as well as reducing the amount of water required for photosynthesis.

12) Fossil fuels are a finite & non-renewable resource.

But here is what I don't know.

a) Is #4, at 400 to 600 parts per million, a greater contributing factor than #9?

b) Is a net warming global climate actually a net negative for human life on this planet?
    1) Could #10 result in greater area of habitable land opening up in Canada, Iceland & Russia to  compensate for the loss of coastal land area due to polar ice melting?
    2) Could #10 + #11 result in an increase (rather a decrease) in forest growth and/or agriculture yields-per-acre?

c) Regardless, if  #2, #3, #8 & #12 are accurate; do we even need to worry about it, since peak everything will ultimately result in the tapering off of fossil fuel emissions for economic reasons & a catastrophic 'tipping point' is impossible since all of the carbon in fossil fuels was once in the atmosphere prior to the Great Oxygen Catastrophe anyway?


I'm sure I could think of more, but that's what I have right now...
 EDIT...

d) Is geoengineering to capture nitrogen (#6) a more effective solution than reducing human emissions, or is there just too much of it?

e) Is 'carbon capture' a viable solution? Should biomass production for industrial or construction uses be 'credited' for carbon capture in a equal or greater measure than renewable energy is credited for avoidance of net carbon emissions?

f) Is renewable energy, itself, a solution? Or is it just unrealistic without a significant reduction in global populations?

[TrulyStashin]

I think most corporate commitment to climate change is lip service. 

I agree that SOME of the corporate commitments are lip service.

But that's easy to spot and the ones that are serious about it are very serious.  When a company is reporting substantive, quantitative performance metrics and has publicly-stated goals, it's not lip service.

Typically, it is C-suite driven.  High-sustainability companies have a distinct operating model with board-level accountability on these issues, robust tracking and reporting on non-financial performance, and high investments in stakeholder relationships.    (Example for board-level accountability:  Ford Motor Board Committee on Corporate Governance http://corporate.ford.com/microsites/sustainability-report-2014-15/strategy-governance-board.html. 

They don't look or operate like their traditional peers.  They are also significantly more profitable as this 2014 study from HBS documents: http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=47307

The laggards will pay the price for their failure to stay competitive.

[TheOldestYoungMan]

What ISN'T a predicted effect of climate change?  Because I've heard:

-more hurricanes
-less hurricanes
-more snow
-less snow
-more storms
-more drought

etc etc as all "proof" of AGW.  I took a dump yesterday morning before work.  GLOBAL WARMING!  I didn't take a dump this morning.  GLOBAL WARMING!

*cough* well constipation is well documented as a possible side effect in models 3B and 7C from ICCC report 3 from 2013, though there was a (largely) discredited retraction in the after-conference notes.

*biggrin*

That's the real issue with AGW proponents.  They have the same problem the tea party has.  A bunch of crazy folks jumped into their boat and immediately started poking holes in it.  They're sitting there with perfectly good science and lots of good evidence, and they keep having to have these discussions which amount to "No, that's not what we're saying, I mean we're saying something similar, but yes, no, gahhhh."  They want to blame wealthy corporations spreading disinformation, but most of their problem comes from within.  If you were really good at math and data processing and the scientific process from 1995-2005, you got a better job then researching this stuff.  So they keep having to deal with errors and incompetence from within their own ranks, and what gets confusing is that despite this, they're still on to something.

Add that to both parties trying to pick up the issue and make it partisan and you really start to just resign yourself to buying high ground and stockpiling canned foods.

[forummm]

Shell actually benefits from climate change hysteria because they get to displace coal with natural gas in our electricity grid.

No, that's just happening because shale gas is cheaper.

[MoonShadow]

Shell actually benefits from climate change hysteria because they get to displace coal with natural gas in our electricity grid.

No, that's just happening because shale gas is cheaper.

For now.

[TheOldestYoungMan]

c) Regardless, if  #2, #3, #8 & #12 are accurate; do we even need to worry about it, since peak everything will ultimately result in the tapering off of fossil fuel emissions for economic reasons & a catastrophic 'tipping point' is impossible since all of the carbon in fossil fuels was once in the atmosphere prior to the Great Oxygen Catastrophe anyway?

I'm sure I could think of more, but that's what I have right now...

Good post.  Right.  So.  I can speak to alot of this.  But I'll talk about (c) because it's the easiest to explain and understand.

Lets think about one possibility, that CO2 was here on the planet.  Life evolved that could use that CO2 with light to create...call it sugar.  So that was going on.  Millions of years.  There was the great oxygenation event and all that, yes.  What's missing from your thinking is the rates.

So photosynthesizing plants are using up a lot of CO2.  I mean, like, craptons.  Over and over, year after year, all over the planet (little bit on land, tons and tons in the oceans).  This process is absolutely cooking.  And then it reached a relative equilibrium.  So CO2 was getting used up, and it should've disappeared entirely right?  I mean maybe a little bit from animals, but the notion that animal life was using up enough plants and oxygen to create enough CO2 to keep the process going is wrong.

So where was the CO2 coming from?  The answer is complicated, but it's from a bunch of places.  One huge source is volcanoes.  Lets just say for simplicity that this is the only source.  So volcanoes put CO2 into the atmosphere, and plants take it out.  And the various levels go up and down.  Periodically, something happens and manages to bury a massive amount of plants and other life, which eventually turns into sweet sweet fossil fuels.

Along come humans, and in 150 years we manage to turn millions of years of sequestered carbon back into atmospheric CO2.  Now, we haven't managed to get all of it back up there, and some of it never really left, because it was part of plants that got eaten and then animals, *ahem* exhausted it, but we're definitely trying hard to find the rest of it and burn it.  So it isn't that it's in the atmosphere and that's where it came from, it's that instead of being released over millions of years, it's been released essentially instantaneously.

There's really no way to know exactly what the effect will be, but it's sort of hard to wrap your head around exactly what this looks like.  The only reason the effect hasn't been massive and worse, is that there are some other sequestration effects that kick in to help knock some of it down, and that the planet was a little on the cold side.

And because the sequestration process that took it out takes geological timescales to work, it's likely that the higher concentration is with us for awhile, so if it does tip the energy balance, then we get a warming trend, as opposed to a warming value (10 degrees total not too bad, 10 degrees per millennium forever...well...not awesome (not my problem either)).

[StashDaddy]

Forummm:  True, new capacity from gas is cheaper than new coal plants.  However, if CO2 regulation were to become more stringent, existing coal plants would be shut down, and Shell would benefit even more.

Moonshadow, yes this is a dangerous topic on here.  I've had some issues with the moderation, as well. 

If you have 1.5 hours to kill, here is a pretty interesting debate "Global Warming is not a crisis" with both sides stating their case.  Based on pre-and post-debate polling, the audience went from majority alarmists to majority skeptical.   http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/559-global-warming-is-not-a-crisis

[swick]

Wow.  This is a dangerous topic on this forum.  I've seen more rational, polite and nuanced conversations on this topic on Permies.com.  I've long thought that the arguments and beliefs that surround this topic have reached a level comparable to religions.  The arguing over dancing on the head of a pin that has occurred in this thread is truly epic.  I was banned for three days shortly after starting this thread, with no justifications offered.  I can think of a rule or two that I have come a bit close to lately, but I suspect that I got it for starting this thread; even though it wasn't locked when I got back. 

MOD NOTE: NO, you were not given a temporary ban because of this thread, you were given a temporary ban, as per our forum rules for a first offense of breaking the forum rules. http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/forum-rules/ We received more than 3 complaints on three separate threads in two days about the tone of your posts.

I went out of my way to ask permission from the mod that locked the last thread, and if it was a taboo subject here.  I was told that nothing is taboo here.  I disagree, this one is definitely taboo.  In fairness, I'm going to post what I believe, and it is a belief for all of us, because the Earth's climate is such a complex system that there might be,at most, 100 people on Earth with both the access to enough actual data, and the skillset to interpret that data, that they can come to a scientificly defensible conclusion.  Exactly zero frequent this forum, I'd guess; so the rest of us are choosing who we trust more based upon what we have been taught to believe.

I believe the following things, none of which I can prove independently, so I won't bother trying to link to someone else's opinions on the topic.

1) The Earth is in a long term warming trend.

2) The Earth is a closed environmental system; i.e., we all live in a giant terrarium.

3) The most stable (lowest energy) form of elemental carbon, oxygen and hydrogen is either carbon-dioxide or water; so we can always expect to see a large amount of these elements in these forms.

4) Carbon-dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

5) Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas.

6) Nitrogen is also a greenhouse gas, but is largely stable in our current environment.

7) Oxygen is not a greenhouse gas, which is where the variation in 'greenhouse gases' comes into play.

8) Human activity has contributed to an increase in greenhouse gases into the present atmosphere, mostly via the combustion of fossil fuels; but also as a result of agriculture generally.

9) Variations in the solar insolation (net amount of solar radiation), due to cycles of the Sun itself, variations in Earth's orbit that bring us closer to or farther from the Sun, and variations in the solar attenuation of the upper atmosphere also have a significant effect in the net effect of global climate changes. (See the Year Without a Summer on Wikipedia)

10) The 'greenhouse effect' of both atmospheric gases and water vapor (mostly visable clouds) DOES NOT warm the Earth's surface evenly.  The majority of net warming would be concentrated near the poles due to atmospheric refraction of infrared radiation.

11) Increases in the concentration of CO2 in the immediate area of plantlife has measurable effects upon both the growth rate of plant mass (carbon capture) as well as reducing the amount of water required for photosynthesis.

12) Fossil fuels are a finite & non-renewable resource.

But here is what I don't know.

a) Is #4, at 400 to 600 parts per million, a greater contributing factor than #9?

b) Is a net warming global climate actually a net negative for human life on this planet?
    1) Could #10 result in greater area of habitable land opening up in Canada, Iceland & Russia to  compensate for the loss of coastal land area due to polar ice melting?
    2) Could #10 + #11 result in an increase (rather a decrease) in forest growth and/or agriculture yields-per-acre?

c) Regardless, if  #2, #3, #8 & #12 are accurate; do we even need to worry about it, since peak everything will ultimately result in the tapering off of fossil fuel emissions for economic reasons & a catastrophic 'tipping point' is impossible since all of the carbon in fossil fuels was once in the atmosphere prior to the Great Oxygen Catastrophe anyway?


I'm sure I could think of more, but that's what I have right now...
 EDIT...

d) Is geoengineering to capture nitrogen (#6) a more effective solution than reducing human emissions, or is there just too much of it?

e) Is 'carbon capture' a viable solution? Should biomass production for industrial or construction uses be 'credited' for carbon capture in a equal or greater measure than renewable energy is credited for avoidance of net carbon emissions?

f) Is renewable energy, itself, a solution? Or is it just unrealistic without a significant reduction in global populations?

[Kris]

Wow.  This is a dangerous topic on this forum.  I've seen more rational, polite and nuanced conversations on this topic on Permies.com.  I've long thought that the arguments and beliefs that surround this topic have reached a level comparable to religions.  The arguing over dancing on the head of a pin that has occurred in this thread is truly epic.  I was banned for three days shortly after starting this thread, with no justifications offered.  I can think of a rule or two that I have come a bit close to lately, but I suspect that I got it for starting this thread; even though it wasn't locked when I got back. 

MOD NOTE: NO, you were not given a temporary ban because of this thread, you were given a temporary ban, as per our forum rules for a first offense of breaking the forum rules. http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/forum-rules/ We received more than 3 complaints on three separate threads in two days about the tone of your posts.

I went out of my way to ask permission from the mod that locked the last thread, and if it was a taboo subject here.  I was told that nothing is taboo here.  I disagree, this one is definitely taboo.  In fairness, I'm going to post what I believe, and it is a belief for all of us, because the Earth's climate is such a complex system that there might be,at most, 100 people on Earth with both the access to enough actual data, and the skillset to interpret that data, that they can come to a scientificly defensible conclusion.  Exactly zero frequent this forum, I'd guess; so the rest of us are choosing who we trust more based upon what we have been taught to believe.

I believe the following things, none of which I can prove independently, so I won't bother trying to link to someone else's opinions on the topic.

1) The Earth is in a long term warming trend.

2) The Earth is a closed environmental system; i.e., we all live in a giant terrarium.

3) The most stable (lowest energy) form of elemental carbon, oxygen and hydrogen is either carbon-dioxide or water; so we can always expect to see a large amount of these elements in these forms.

4) Carbon-dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

5) Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas.

6) Nitrogen is also a greenhouse gas, but is largely stable in our current environment.

7) Oxygen is not a greenhouse gas, which is where the variation in 'greenhouse gases' comes into play.

8) Human activity has contributed to an increase in greenhouse gases into the present atmosphere, mostly via the combustion of fossil fuels; but also as a result of agriculture generally.

9) Variations in the solar insolation (net amount of solar radiation), due to cycles of the Sun itself, variations in Earth's orbit that bring us closer to or farther from the Sun, and variations in the solar attenuation of the upper atmosphere also have a significant effect in the net effect of global climate changes. (See the Year Without a Summer on Wikipedia)

10) The 'greenhouse effect' of both atmospheric gases and water vapor (mostly visable clouds) DOES NOT warm the Earth's surface evenly.  The majority of net warming would be concentrated near the poles due to atmospheric refraction of infrared radiation.

11) Increases in the concentration of CO2 in the immediate area of plantlife has measurable effects upon both the growth rate of plant mass (carbon capture) as well as reducing the amount of water required for photosynthesis.

12) Fossil fuels are a finite & non-renewable resource.

But here is what I don't know.

a) Is #4, at 400 to 600 parts per million, a greater contributing factor than #9?

b) Is a net warming global climate actually a net negative for human life on this planet?
    1) Could #10 result in greater area of habitable land opening up in Canada, Iceland & Russia to  compensate for the loss of coastal land area due to polar ice melting?
    2) Could #10 + #11 result in an increase (rather a decrease) in forest growth and/or agriculture yields-per-acre?

c) Regardless, if  #2, #3, #8 & #12 are accurate; do we even need to worry about it, since peak everything will ultimately result in the tapering off of fossil fuel emissions for economic reasons & a catastrophic 'tipping point' is impossible since all of the carbon in fossil fuels was once in the atmosphere prior to the Great Oxygen Catastrophe anyway?


I'm sure I could think of more, but that's what I have right now...
 EDIT...

d) Is geoengineering to capture nitrogen (#6) a more effective solution than reducing human emissions, or is there just too much of it?

e) Is 'carbon capture' a viable solution? Should biomass production for industrial or construction uses be 'credited' for carbon capture in a equal or greater measure than renewable energy is credited for avoidance of net carbon emissions?

f) Is renewable energy, itself, a solution? Or is it just unrealistic without a significant reduction in global populations?

Clearly, you weren't banned because you started this topic, as the topic was not locked when you go back.  I suspect you will continue to believe it, though, because you do not start discussions in order to dialog and perhaps change your thinking.

Though I was not one of the ones who complained about you, I am heartened to hear you were banned for three days for breaking forum rules.  My guess is that you will not change your tone or your behavior, and that we may not see much more of you as a result

[sol]

My guess is that you will not change your tone or your behavior, and that we may not see much more of you as a result

Let's not be too eager to call for the ban hammer.  This place would be boring without a few pot stirrers.

[MDM]

MOD NOTE: NO, you were not given a temporary ban because of this thread, you were given a temporary ban, as per our forum rules for a first offense of breaking the forum rules. http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/forum-rules/ We received more than 3 complaints on three separate threads in two days about the tone of your posts.

Clearly, you weren't banned because you started this topic, as the topic was not locked when you go back.  I suspect you will continue to believe it, though, because you do not start discussions in order to dialog and perhaps change your thinking.

Though I was not one of the ones who complained about you, I am heartened to hear you were banned for three days for breaking forum rules.  My guess is that you will not change your tone or your behavior, and that we may not see much more of you as a result

Wow.

Although it can be difficult to distinguish "fault" when there's a mud-wrestling free-for-all, my perception (which could be changed by good contrary examples) was that MoonShadow was far from the worst offender.  If the banning brush covered a wide swath, that's one thing, but if people called out MS without naming other names...I agree with sol's comment about "not be too eager to call for the ban hammer."