KyussB wrote: » generally prefer government-led initiatives for transitioning economies to being carbon-neutral, not market-based ones - because market-based solutions don't provide results fast enough.
KyussB wrote: » then there is no reason we can't achieve 100% renewable energy.
Veritas Libertas wrote: » How do you explain the government led initiative for transitioning away from single use plastic bags, which have far less of a carbon footprint to their paper and reusable counterparts?
Eric Cartman wrote: » how many letters have you sent to people in 2019 vs 1994 , how many international meetings have become skype calls since 2000 I would say the market has cut emissions by a long shot in not a long time.
KyussB wrote: » There is an abundance of renewable energy sources (just Google how much energy is hitting the Earth all the time, vs how much the entire planet uses), with the right tech and mass production (preferably with minimized rare earths through R&D) to unlock it at a big enough scale, and combined with good enough storage (again needing R&D to minimize rare earths) - then there is no reason we can't achieve 100% renewable energy. The GND advocates generally have described how to implement the policy changes - and massive R&D for technological development, as I describe, is right up there along with the other policies. I mean lets take even just the R&D: What argument has anyone got, against governments worldwide, engaging in Manhattan Project style (on the scale of the whole world) R&D, for refining technology for reducing emissions? None. Taking just that one aspect of the GND - nobody has an argument as to why governments should not be spending enormous money, employing huge numbers of people, worldwide - for doing this.
Veritas Libertas wrote: » There is everyreason we can't achieve 100% renewable energy. Most renewable energy supplies are intermittent. Think about when the wind stops blowing or the sun goes down.
Tell me how wrote: » Usually most vocal from those of a conservative mind-set who feel government interference in the free market is already way too much and when you suggest them spending enormously, what they hear is having to pay more and more tax and that is enough for them to veto such a plan.
Veritas Libertas wrote: » KyussB wrote: » There is an abundance of renewable energy sources (just Google how much energy is hitting the Earth all the time, vs how much the entire planet uses), with the right tech and mass production (preferably with minimized rare earths through R&D) to unlock it at a big enough scale, and combined with good enough storage (again needing R&D to minimize rare earths) - then there is no reason we can't achieve 100% renewable energy. There is everyreason we can't achieve 100% renewable energy. Most renewable energy supplies are intermittent. Think about when the wind stops blowing or the sun goes down.
KyussB wrote: » There is an abundance of renewable energy sources (just Google how much energy is hitting the Earth all the time, vs how much the entire planet uses), with the right tech and mass production (preferably with minimized rare earths through R&D) to unlock it at a big enough scale, and combined with good enough storage (again needing R&D to minimize rare earths) - then there is no reason we can't achieve 100% renewable energy.
KyussB wrote: » The bit in bold (mentioning energy storage in particular) is the bit this poster cut-out from my sentence, to make it look like this remained unanswered.
Tell me how wrote: » Unfortunately, there are all too many people with arguments why this shouldn't be done. Usually most vocal from those of a conservative mind-set who feel government interference in the free market is already way too much and when you suggest them spending enormously, what they hear is having to pay more and more tax and that is enough for them to veto such a plan.
KyussB wrote: » ? Carbon emissions have been trending up overall, not down... Private industry would need to get us to Zero emissions. Preferably by the end of the next decade. Everyone knows that private industry can't achieve that. Only government action, worldwide, can.
Veritas Libertas wrote: » What they hear is people end up starving, people end up suffering and people end up dying. Top down intervention like what is being advocated has long history of this stuff.
Veritas Libertas wrote: » So this whole new GND is dependent on future technology not yet available?
KyussB wrote: » What you quote is a criticism of NeoLiberal market-based solutions to climate change - NeoLiberal's love subsidies, that's why the fossil fuel industry receives so much in subsidies.
KyussB wrote: » Green New Deal proponents, generally prefer government-led initiatives for transitioning economies to being carbon-neutral, not market-based ones - because market-based solutions don't provide results fast enough.
Eric Cartman wrote: » Population growth, longer lifespans and the increase in consumer spending in africa and asia have an awful lot to do with that.the only way worldwide government intervention will ever achieve anything is by asian and african countries completely screwing over their citizens and the manufacturing sector.
Tell me how wrote: » That's if the governments play by the old rules of just flat out trying to inhibit development so as to reduce emissions. The GND and other advocates of change recognize the need (particularly) for development and are advocating for alternatives technologies to be developed to reduce emissions. Not that we keep using the same technology but less of it. That is a fundamental difference not seemingly understood by those saying Greta and others don't understand what it means to cut emissions.
Eric Cartman wrote: » "what private business has been doing isnt quick enough" "if we put the government in charge they can definitely research and develop things that don't currently exist and private business has been trying to do for years in a much shorter timeframe and thats how fully renewable energy will work"
Eric Cartman wrote: » Population growth, longer lifespans and the increase in consumer spending in africa and asia have an awful lot to do with that. the only way worldwide government intervention will ever achieve anything is by asian and african countries completely screwing over their citizens and the manufacturing sector.
Eric Cartman wrote: » but according to greta and all the others we don't have time for 'ifs' and 'research' if you need to reduce emissions fast - nuclear power is what you have if you need to do it cheaply - you start a genocide if you want to do it the cleanest way possible its going to take 50 years minimum , which is fine by most timelines except the alarmists, we'll all be dead by then according to them.
KyussB wrote: » Precisely. Just like how the US government put men on the moon by the end of the coming decade - and now 50 years later Musk still hasn't achieved manned flight, despite his business being around almost 2 decades, with the full benefit of the fruits of all of NASA's previous tech R&D.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » No, we won't be dead in 50 years' time if changes aren't made quickly. However, the world's climate will be very different with consequential global problems and climate change will have passed tipping point. What is tipping point? Have a guess.
Eric Cartman wrote: » so we have to make the changes quickly, so new tech is out, whats the plan then if new tech is out, how do we meet the worlds energy demand without reducing the population ?
Professor Moriarty wrote: » We start by getting everyone on board. Especially China, India, America, Russia, the EU etc. Then we formulate a plan based on the best scientific research available.
Tell me how wrote: » If only we had some sort of accord that countries signed up to, adhered to and stuck with.....
Professor Moriarty wrote: » There is one! 195 countries signed up but one wants to withdraw, the name of which escapes me.
jackboy wrote: » No there isn’t. That was just something thrown together for PR reasons. The actions in it would not achieve anything.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » There is no Paris Accord? Can you prove this?
