Climate change talk sat. 05 April

Builderfromhell

10151858_10152263089207999_1992861137_n.jpg

dr.fuzzenstein

I remain sceptic. Not to climate change as such (something very few people understand, other than spouting what they heard elsewhere), but to governments approach to it.
"We can fix climate change if you just pay more for your car, your heat, electricity, petrol, clothes, food, special "green" a$$ rape taxes and other levies and charges".
Yeah, the cash will be loaded into special carbon converters that spew out pure unicorn tears. I'm sure it is not just being used to pay off trillions of ruinous debt that cripples the western world due to decades of insane financial planning, bankrupt social plans and reckless borrowing by successive governments in order to buy elections. Nevermind wastage and just plain theft dressed up as "consultant's fees"
The problem is that The Greens where seen as crackpots until one of them said in the 80's "Petrol should cost 5 Deutschmark a liter so people will stop driving"
Politicians ears everywhere pricked up. "We can charge these assholes ANYTHING, dress it up as green tax and no-one can argue with it, because Babies Will Die!"
And thus the greatest con in the history of mankind was born.
Carbon Credits. Nuff said!

Akrasia

The point of increasing the cost of carbon is to create a market for low carbon technology.

It's a blunt instrument, but people tend to follow their wallets.

The price of oil will keep going up, people will start buying smaller more fuel efficient internal combustion engine cars, hybrids and electric cars, and slowly but surely, the national fleet will adapt to lower carbon vehicles.

I wish there was an easier way.

Maybe some day one of these new technologies will deliver on it's potential to produce very cheap environmentally friendly and abundent energy, but until this happens, the population and industry needs to be corralled down a road that they are reluctant to go down, and taxes are one of the few available tools.

dr.fuzzenstein

Yes, Ireland has a massive problem with people driving gas guzzling V8's.
The main issue for me is, where is all that amazing technology?
The current strategy is to punish the consumer for using existing technology whilst giving zero incentive to the manufacturer to come up with alternatives.
Imagine giving a guy a screwdriver to loosen a screw. And then hiring a big guy to hit him over the head every time he tries to use the screwdriver.
We need to live somewhere, possibly heated with hot water and a toilet, get to work and maybe even go on holidays every now and then.
The problem is that the Greens want us all to live in straw lined holes in the ground heated by our own urine whilst riding vegan bicycles and the government just want to rape us for as much money as they possibly can. So one side are crackpots and the other thieving *****.
None of which actually helps the environment.

Akrasia

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Yes, Ireland has a massive problem with people driving gas guzzling V8's.
The main issue for me is, where is all that amazing technology?

In 1995, the ford Fiesta did 41 mpg. The 2008 fiesta can do up to 85.6mpg (later model is diesel, but there was no diesel option in 1995)

The current strategy is to punish the consumer for using existing technology whilst giving zero incentive to the manufacturer to come up with alternatives.

The incentive for the manufacturer is consumer pressure. When petrol prices were low in the U.S, that's when people drove huge V12s that did 5mpg. Now the consumers demand frugal diesels and that is what they are getting.

In Ireland, diesel was seen as a farmers car, now some models aren't even being imported with petrol engines because the demand isn't there.

Imagine giving a guy a screwdriver to loosen a screw. And then hiring a big guy to hit him over the head every time he tries to use the screwdriver.
We need to live somewhere, possibly heated with hot water and a toilet, get to work and maybe even go on holidays every now and then.
The problem is that the Greens want us all to live in straw lined holes in the ground heated by our own urine whilst riding vegan bicycles and the government just want to rape us for as much money as they possibly can. So one side are crackpots and the other thieving *****.
None of which actually helps the environment.

Some greens think we should go back to living in the trees, others think that we can use technology to maintain our standard of living while also dealing with environmental issues. I am of the latter pursuasion, but the markets are slow to change by themselves, so governments need to interfere to speed up the transition to a high tech low carbon economy.

It's painful in the short term, especially for those whithout much disposable income (and I'm one of those people) but with climate change, we are gonna experience pain, it's better to take a hit now when there is a chance of avoiding the worst consequences rather than delay until it's too late and the costs are much much higher

Shapey Fiend

Remember when it was acid rain was going to poison all our lakes and rivers and it turned out to be complete nonsense? People are putting far too much weight in climatology as a science. There are more factors at play than carbon and trying to quantify a system that complicated is ridiculous. All they're doing is building apocalyptical predictive models. Temperatures are currently flat if not actually cooling year on year which is why global warming has been rebranded climate change in the last couple of years. Now it's about more unstable and variable climate.. rather than just hotter climate.. which is a bit of a ridiculous concept if you look back through history.

Anyway I'm all for cleaning up our environment. It's one of the aspects of the EU that I think has been very beneficial. We just shouldn't be centering our whole policy around carbon. It's like deciding heart disease is all about cholesterol and ignoring blood pressure.

The reason renewable energy and alternative energy sources won't make headway in our generation is the oil companies are too fecking cute. We're a long, long way off peak oil but they like to reference it constantly because if they admitted how much oil they're capable of getting at with new drilling technologies they couldn't charge so much for it. They'll keep the price at the top of what the market can bare. Then any time the renewable alternatives start to get too popular they'll just release all their stockpiles on the market (that they had sitting in tankers off the coast back a few years ago) and drop the price to 40 dollars a barrel for a few months. Bang.. all your competitors with green technology go right out of business and you put it back up to 100 dollars.

I find the mpg quoted by most car manufacturers to be grossly out of whack with what mpg a car does in the real world.

If we decide we're going to avoid dependence on fossil fuels then we have to go nuclear and even if the new reactors are pretty safe I don't think there's much appetite from the Irish public for going in that direction.

Akrasia

Acid rain was and is a real problem. In the U.S. and Europe, we drastically reduced our emissions of sulphur dioxide which prevented a lot of damage which would have occured if we had listened to the acid rain deniers (who are many of the same people who are now denying global warming) China is still suffering from endemic acid rain although they have started to tackle it in the last few years.

Global warming was not 'rebranded' climate change. Both terms are still used and they are both accurate. The consequence of global warming is that the climate is changing.

You're right, there are other parts of environmental policy that need to be tackled as well as global warming. But we do have a very short time-scale in which we will either transform our economy into a low carbon economy, or we will lock ourselves into potentially catastrophic climate change. Even the lower ranges of projected warming will have a large economic cost.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/climate-change-to-cost-2bn-a-year-as-droughts-hit-crops-30203218.html

There are other environmental problems that are also serious, such as deforestation, but one would hope that preserving the worlds rainforests will form a part of the solution to global warming

dr.fuzzenstein

As I said, because some green hardliner said in the 80's that the price of petrol should be increased tenfold to force people out of their cars, the government has been on a mission to ruin people by hiking taxes under a "green" excuse, to pay off billions in debt brought on by idiotic management and waste.
And this is not small change, countries have taken on unsustainable levels of debt since, well, ever.
If you looked at the financial situation of most countries, you could say that 90% of them should be bankrupt. The US alone owes $16 trillion. It can be safely assumed this will never be paid off.
I have to regard the government as an entity that has only one purpose: To take me for as much money as possible and giving back as little as possible.
Our current situation illustrates that nicely. Wages have fallen, jobs have gone and the government happily hiking taxes into the stratosphere.
Why?
So the money can be given to billionaire bankers who wouldn't miss it in the first place.
The environment is of concern, but the international mafia of investors who would gladly ruin millions of people and entire countries for another half a percent in their billion dollar gambles are the real problem this planet faces.
At some stage people who looked after your grannies savings and bought and sold commodities have evolved into a gambler's club whose purpose is to make money for itself.
Governments, face it, largely run by idiots, thought they could mix it up with the big boys and decided to put all our pensions on red. They lost.
If the government thought they could get away with raising income tax and VAT to 90%, they would do it. Because those €200 billion won't pay themselves off.
The entire model of banking and government that the modern world is built upon has failed. All the money is owned by banks and governments are desperate for excuses to hike up taxes.
Remember Malta? Ultimately the government will put it's hand into your bank account (ironically to give it back to the bank) and simply steal your money.
Think this didn't happen here? Bahahahaaa! Think you have a pension? Think again.
Does our money go on green tech, science, exploration or other things that will improve the human race?
No, it gets thrown on a huge pile of money that sits in an account with no other purpose than to make an investor rich. A person that, IMO, has contributed nothing worthwhile to the human race.
Why? Because we simply are monkeys that want to have more bananas than the other monkeys. We are simply to primitive and stupid to see the bigger picture.
If the Greens think any of this actually helps the planet, they are deluded.
For that billions should be invested into solar, wind, hydrogen, nuclear fusion, etc... instead of the absolute pittance that goes into science and technology.
Again, we are being made to pay, but not for what we think we're paying for.
Biggest con ever.

Akrasia

I agree with you about corruption in the international financial system and that wealth consolidation is a massive problem.

I don't agree that this is the fault of the green movement or in any way related to climate change.

Corrupt governments and the economic elites will divert the available funds to their own self interest regardless. The fact remains, we need to
A) Disincentivise the production of CO2
Incentivise research and development into alternative energy

If you can think of a realistic and practical way to do these things without increasing the cost of fossil fuels for the consumer then i'm all ears.

dr.fuzzenstein

Akrasia wrote: »

I agree with you about corruption in the international financial system and that wealth consolidation is a massive problem.

I don't agree that this is the fault of the green movement or in any way related to climate change.

Corrupt governments and the economic elites will divert the available funds to their own self interest regardless. The fact remains, we need to
A) disincentivise the production of CO2
Insentivise research and development into alternative energy

If you can think of a realistic and practical way to do these things without increasing the cost of fossil fuels for the consumer then i'm all ears.

I'm not saying it's the fault of the green movement. The original idea was to live more responsible lives and respect our planet.
What happened is that it got hijacked by the established system, where profit is worshipped above all else and I mean above people, above the environment, above the future survival of the human race.
Before that there had to be some kind of reason to hike taxes, now all that needs to be said is "it's a green tax".

My MAIN problem:
To disincentivise something is all well and good.
But imagine I drive a car and heat my house (The sheer NERVE of me! How DARE I! I am EVIL!) and let's just say I want to be all green and cuddly.
So I get myself a Nissan Leaf, completely redo the insulation of my house, pack on solar (both, hot water and photo-voltaic) and put up some windmills while I'm at it.
What will that cost me? A very conservative estimate is €50k.
I can't afford that because I am poor. So, to "incentivise" me, the government will tax the sh*t out of me.
Result?
Well, I am going into that secret vault every person has in their house (in the mind of the government anyway) where I keep the gold, stocks and bonds, diamonds and vast reserves of cash and buy all that spiffy tech.
Ah wrong!
I doubly can't afford it now, so I will just have to give up work because I can't afford my car anymore and sit at home freezing in the dark!
THAT is the reality for millions of people, my green friend!
We DON'T HAVE a couple of grand lying around to buy all that tech.
That's how an alternative works, it is meant to replace what we are currently using, but if it doesn't, you're just punishing people for doing the only thing the can.
The Greens are not at fault, but they are blindly pursuing an ideology that will put millions into poverty and make a few manufacturers of green tech immensely rich. They where just bought up and now are being used to feather the nests of banks and industry.

Akrasia

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I'm not saying it's the fault of the green movement. The original idea was to live more responsible lives and respect our planet.
What happened is that it got hijacked by the established system, where profit is worshipped above all else and I mean above people, above the environment, above the future survival of the human race.
Before that there had to be some kind of reason to hike taxes, now all that needs to be said is "it's a green tax".

My MAIN problem:
To disincentivise something is all well and good.
But imagine I drive a car and heat my house (The sheer NERVE of me! How DARE I! I am EVIL!) and let's just say I want to be all green and cuddly.
So I get myself a Nissan Leaf, completely redo the insulation of my house, pack on solar (both, hot water and photo-voltaic) and put up some windmills while I'm at it.
What will that cost me? A very conservative estimate is €50k.
I can't afford that because I am poor. So, to "incentivise" me, the government will tax the sh*t out of me.
Result?
Well, I am going into that secret vault every person has in their house (in the mind of the government anyway) where I keep the gold, stocks and bonds, diamonds and vast reserves of cash and buy all that spiffy tech.
Ah wrong!
I doubly can't afford it now, so I will just have to give up work because I can't afford my car anymore and sit at home freezing in the dark!
THAT is the reality for millions of people, my green friend!
We DON'T HAVE a couple of grand lying around to buy all that tech.
That's how an alternative works, it is meant to replace what we are currently using, but if it doesn't, you're just punishing people for doing the only thing the can.
The Greens are not at fault, but they are blindly pursuing an ideology that will put millions into poverty and make a few manufacturers of green tech immensely rich. They where just bought up and now are being used to feather the nests of banks and industry.

I know that it's expensive, but it's necessary. I don't have the money to spend either. I'm stuck in a rented house with an inefficient boiler, I'm stuck with a 10 year old car paying high road tax and high fuel tax. But, eventually, these will need to be replaced, and they will be replaced by something far more efficient than the current models and the break even point for investing in more efficient technology is much sooner now than it would be if there were no green taxes.

30 years ago, houses were routinely built with inadequate insulation and people were using loads of oil heating the house and wasting most of the energy. Now, all houses are insulated to a minimum standard, but if you're in the market to buy or rent a new house, you'll likely choose a house that has a higher energy rating all else being equal because the running costs are a real incentive now that they're so much higher.
Tens of thousands of households have invested in upgrading their insulation and central heating systems to more energy efficient ones because it saves them money in the medium to long term and because grants have been available to upgrade.

Similarly, if you're buying a new or used car, you're more likely to choose a car with lower emissions because this will save you money on fuel and road tax. Unfortunately, this is a heavy burden on lower income people who can not afford to upgrade their car, but eventually, they will need to replace their old vehicle, and you can be sure that they'll get the one with the lowest running costs that they can afford.

Attitudes from consumers who want fuel efficiency, combined with changes to regulations have driven car manufacturers to produce cars with half the average fuel consumption of the most efficient cars compared with the same models 10 to 15 years ago.

dr.fuzzenstein

Half the fuel consumption? Maybe if you compare an ancient petrol Fiesta with a modern diesel model, which is comparing apples and oranges.
The MKI diesel Golf achieved 6.5 liters/100 km, or 43.46 MPG in old money.
The current 1.6 diesel Gold does (under non-real world lab conditions) 3.8l/100 km, 74.34.
I am extremely sceptical as to the figures of the new Golf, we can safely subtract 10 mpg to get a real world figure.
Anyways, it is not a doubling in fuel efficiency and that is nearly 40 years ago.
And I absolutely hate this attitude that a 10 year old car is nothing but scrap on wheels. If it is petrol, there won't be a massive difference to a new car.

Also:
If you or me drive a 10 year old car, it is unlikely that we will splurge €20k (minimum) on a brand-spanking new car.
More likely, if you don't have the money, most likely the route to go is cheap old banger, because I cannot afford to spend tens of thousands to save a few hundred and all the green taxes in the world won't change that fact.
In fact, the more we are being pushed to new tech, the more some people will have to resort to green diesel, chipfat, heating their house with cut up pallets and other desperate means to keep up.
Sure, you can stick another Euro on petrol and diesel, will this result in me buying a new car?
No, it will result in me packing in my job and signing on the dole, along with thousands of others.
So in the end Europe will sink in a mire of miles of red tape and sky high energy costs and eventually we will be the new third world, while China and India will run rings around us so fast, our heads will spin.
We will need fusion reactors and hydrogen tech to keep up and I don't see it.
Wind is no good, if you cannot store the energy, because it doesn't care for demand.
Electric cars may offer some hope, but where is the energy coming from? Germany shut down all it's nuclear plants (another bit of green dogma) and is burning turf and coal. Hooray, we're back in the 19th century!
Again, we need fusion, hydrogen, batteries that are 10 times more efficient, but I don't see the research and the investment.
If it gets worse, I have to buy a 1980's Merc diesel and run it on chipfat.

dr.fuzzenstein

BTW:

I am not anti new tech. I want it! If it was there and affordable I'd use it.
I have stuck heaps of insulation in my house, heat is via wood pellets, I drive an efficient car (50 mpg real world figure) and solar panels are on the cards for this year.
Anything that's more efficient, I'll take it.
But the problem with current approach (and it is a typical Irish government problem), it's all stick and no carrot.
The Irish government doesn't do incentives, it's just beat you over the head till you do what they want. That crap don't fly with me.

And why is there no incentives/alternatives?
Because there is just too much money being made in punishing people on "old" tech for not using non-existent "new" tech.

Akrasia

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

BTW:

I am not anti new tech. I want it! If it was there and affordable I'd use it.
I have stuck heaps of insulation in my house, heat is via wood pellets, I drive an efficient car (50 mpg real world figure) and solar panels are on the cards for this year.
Anything that's more efficient, I'll take it.
But the problem with current approach (and it is a typical Irish government problem), it's all stick and no carrot.
The Irish government doesn't do incentives, it's just beat you over the head till you do what they want. That crap don't fly with me.

And why is there no incentives/alternatives?
Because there is just too much money being made in punishing people on "old" tech for not using non-existent "new" tech.

Based on this post, the carbon taxes seem to be workin as intended

It would be amazing if we had commercially viable fusion power. our problems would be solved. I wish they would hurry up but i suppose it's a bit complicated recreating the conditions at the core of the sun on planet earth.

Wind power requires more investment and subsidies to achieve it's potential. Unfortunately, there are a lot of political opponents and commercial interests lobbying against this.

Ireland could become a world leader in renewable technology but our government don't have the vision and the drive to do it.

dr.fuzzenstein

Akrasia wrote: »

Based on this post, the carbon taxes seem to be workin as intended

It would be amazing if we had commercially viable fusion power. our problems would be solved. I wish they would hurry up but i suppose it's a bit complicated recreating the conditions at the core of the sun on planet earth.

Wind power requires more investment and subsidies to achieve it's potential. Unfortunately, there are a lot of political opponents and commercial interests lobbying against this.

Ireland could become a world leader in renewable technology but our government don't have the vision and the drive to do it.

Only one problem with wind power. It doesn't care about demand. So when it blows like mad, but no one's using, it all goes to waste. Or if there's peak demand but no wind, we all have to get out and blow.
The carbon taxes don't do sh*t other than line the pockets of government or industry, there was a grant for the boiler and the solar will be sourced either from the many stock clearances, another grant or Dung Deal. Nothing to do with carbon tax, I don't spend thousands to save hundreds like too many people do, I only go for something if it is long term viable and makes sense to me.
But this is Ireland, we don't do positive or incentives, we only do tax hammer or ban hammer. Nothing is ever positive, its only "ah jaysus, I'll tax the sh*te out of you, I'll soon fix your wagon". That tells me to just ignore whatever comes from above (sh*t usually) and just find my own ways round.
People just go back to woodstoves and start burning any old crap in them as long as its cheap or free. If it contains some paint or varnish, no matter. And old diesel cars will burn any old crap. The only thing green about them Is what goes in the tank. Now that is environmentalism at work.

Akrasia

Ok, this probably isn't really the forum for this thread so I'll make this my last reply. (we're kinda going round in circles anyway)

I'm quite optimistic about the capacity for human ingenuity. I think we can innovate our way towards a solution to global warming before we reach a critical point of no return. There are viable solutions to the variability of wind power (eg pumped storage, or using excess power during peak production times to create hydrogen from water using hydrolysis or electrolysis (pilot programs of this technology have already been undertaken and it's feasable if a little bit expensive at the moment http://www.powermag.com/european-firms-complete-wind-to-hydrogen-power-plant/)

As the costs of fossil fuels go up, it becomes more viable for industry to generate it's own electricity from it's own waste products. Fuel cells could be powered using waste methane generated in industrial farms for example, thus, reducing greenhouse gasses at both ends of the production line.

The main barrier to this happening is incentives. The whole carbon tax idea is to make polluting more expensive and by default, it creates a market for less polluting technologies.

While it would be far better for all of the income gained in the carbon taxes to be either ring-fenced to be spent only on initiatives to further reduce CO2 emmissions, or offset by reduced taxes elsewhere, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't really matter where the money is spent, it could be burned (and the co2 sequestered somewhere) and the carbon tax would still be doing 90% of what it was intended to do.

I would 100% support a political campaign that proposed increasing carbon taxes while increasing personal tax credits by the same amount so that it is revenue neutral.

dr.fuzzenstein

I think we kind of agree and kind of disagree.
I also am optimistic about human ingenuity and inventiveness, but also pessimistic about business and government, because they tend to take good ideas and turn them into nothing but money spinners, where nothing but the bottom line matters.
I am with you 100% on hydrogen, it is something I passionately believe in for our future energy needs.
My main difference with you is incentives.
For some reason I have this crazy, whacked out idea that in order for new technology to appear you need money to do R&D and come up with new products that do what you want them to do.
Not to tax old Granny Smith so much she can't heat her house in the winter. The greens have that part down, they just don't think any further, apart from lofty ideals and woolly notions.
Taxing the consumer to get business to invest in new technology is not the way to go IMO. You're punishing the wrong person here.
I passionately disagree with the statement that carbon taxes alone will fix everything, this is obviously the utterance of someone who has lofty ideas, but zero idea of how to turn them into reality.
Again, you're punishing people for heating their house and getting to work.
So instead of industry researching, you now have old and poor people freezing in the dark, because they can't afford heat and electricity.
That point always makes me think that the greens don't really have much of an understanding as to how business works and maybe they don't even want all that new tech, because this means they can continue to bleed people dry.
No wonder the green party in Ireland was decimated, because the Irish where smart enough to catch on to the fact that all the greens want to do is tax and ban and they don't care about the actual welfare of the people.
I used to passionately believe in the greens, but their greedy "tax everything to the hilt" agenda has turned me against them and will do the same for more and more people.

Akrasia

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I think we kind of agree and kind of disagree.
I also am optimistic about human ingenuity and inventiveness, but also pessimistic about business and government, because they tend to take good ideas and turn them into nothing but money spinners, where nothing but the bottom line matters.
I am with you 100% on hydrogen, it is something I passionately believe in for our future energy needs.
My main difference with you is incentives.
For some reason I have this crazy, whacked out idea that in order for new technology to appear you need money to do R&D and come up with new products that do what you want them to do.
Not to tax old Granny Smith so much she can't heat her house in the winter. The greens have that part down, they just don't think any further, apart from lofty ideals and woolly notions.
Taxing the consumer to get business to invest in new technology is not the way to go IMO. You're punishing the wrong person here.
I passionately disagree with the statement that carbon taxes alone will fix everything, this is obviously the utterance of someone who has lofty ideas, but zero idea of how to turn them into reality.
Again, you're punishing people for heating their house and getting to work.
So instead of industry researching, you now have old and poor people freezing in the dark, because they can't afford heat and electricity.
That point always makes me think that the greens don't really have much of an understanding as to how business works and maybe they don't even want all that new tech, because this means they can continue to bleed people dry.
No wonder the green party in Ireland was decimated, because the Irish where smart enough to catch on to the fact that all the greens want to do is tax and ban and they don't care about the actual welfare of the people.
I used to passionately believe in the greens, but their greedy "tax everything to the hilt" agenda has turned me against them and will do the same for more and more people.

Just FYI, I am not in the green party nor have I ever been, and If I was in power, my solutions would be a lot closer to what you are suggesting than what we currently have. But given the reality of our political and economic situation, I think the current plan is better than doing nothing

dr.fuzzenstein

Akrasia wrote: »

Just FYI, I am not in the green party nor have I ever been, and If I was in power, my solutions would be a lot closer to what you are suggesting than what we currently have. But given the reality of our political and economic situation, I think the current plan is better than doing nothing

I still disagree. I want to fully agree with you, but I can't on some points. I am fortunate enough to earn enough money to be able to either keep up with the tech or just pay more in order to be able to drive a car and heat my house. I try to go for the most efficient solution possible.
But at some stage tax burden on energy costs will go beyond a critical level and cause fuel poverty, rural depopulation and job losses.
Then the vicious circle begins of plummeting tax takes, expenditure cutting, higher state borrowing and dwindling jobs.
More people will then default on their mortgages, the banks will need another bailout, more debt, more poverty, etc...
The greens want to reduce the output of greenhouse gases and other harmful pollutants, but it seems that they want to do it by way of ruining countries and decimating their economies.
I agree with the goals, but I passionately disagree with the methods.
Of course we both want the same, it is only logical that if you have only the one planet, it makes sense not to poison it.
The problem is that developing countries don't have the same scruples and by taxing ourselves out of existence, we simply open the playing field to China and India, who have no scruples whatsoever what the environment is concerned.
What can we do about them? Crippling ourselves is not the way to go.