I got 99 problems and INFLATION makes it 107.415

[dbroncos78087]

I watched the PM of the Canadian Province which has the Canadian Shale oil reserves talk how stupid the canceling of the keystone pipeline is along with why the US is going to its enemies Iran, Venezuela and not North American allies to replace the lost Russian oil that is being purchased?

Why in the hell is Biden doing this dumb ****? the pipeline would just save money in that it is already mostly spent and is less than being trucked to the existing ports. It seems like Biden and the dems want the price of gasoline to skyrocket and to put not just the oil companies but other companies that use oil byproducts out of business also. Whose side are they on? China and Russia?

It's worth pointing out once again that the Keystone Pipeline isn't an oil drill, so there is no new oil being produced by it. It's just transporting the oil a different way. That is it. After weighing the environmental impact, it was a decision made to not allow their permit to continue. So the PM of Canada is probably not going to see an issue with the US allowing oil to be transported in a way that we determined to be environmentally problematic. If I remember correctly, the pipeline went through water tables in some communities, which means that their drinkable water is ****ed if there is an oil spill from within the pipe.

TL;DR: don't conflate an oil pipeline for an oil drill...

[Bird of Prey]

I wouldn't doubt you saw a study like that by those environmental scientists but the scientific method is susceptible to different conclusions (just like anything else). Can I assume you picked to believe that study because it aligned with previous thoughts you had about the issue already?

What do you think the definition of global warming is?

I based my opinion about global warming about the time it was first brought up by Al Gore and his climatologist references. I was interested in this opinion because it was opposite of what other climatologists at an earlier time were claiming about the earth going to be hit by what was called a mini ice age in Europe and the effect that it would have on the food production in the world. When I read the earliest studies that were done in support of Gore and company I found out about that there were many scientists who disagreed with the way that the studies themselves plugged in made up temperatures at many collection points in the world and basically they helped to invalidate the conclusions reached.

I had a statistical emphasis as part of my MBA degree work and understand the way a lot of statistical studies become invalid to take serious because of stuff like what I read on the global warming early studies. Plus when I found out the shenanigans the Gore himself was all about in regard to making a lot of money as the faux global warming guru , I believed that this had all the makings of a huge scam.

[Bird of Prey]

This was bound to happen regardless because of the spending due to COVID19. I don't want to make this into a COVID thread so I (would probably sum it up to say that the economy wasn't ever going to do well with the response of the COVID situation, which in hind sight I think a lot of people would struggle with where to lean or lean towards perceived economy growth over the perceived health benefits.

The spending for Covid was a burden. No question about it. I think, though, that the worst thing that happened was the over-kill of federal spending which sort of supercharged the inflation instead of the economy set up already to deal with the pent up demand caused by consumers being locked down and not able to spend the way that they wanted.The additonal money thrown into the money stream by the fed and cause to a large degree by the silly increases in unemployment bonus checks prolonged the losses to the labor force and slowed teh recovery in general and increased the supply side drastically.

[catman]

You realize the closing down of the Keystone pipeline does nothing to change the amount of oil being transported in this country. It just makes the transport of that oil less efficient and less "environmentally friendly". The oil is being transported by rail or truck and both of those methods require diesel to run.

[Bird of Prey]

Of course there is no proof — because reducing the temperature is not the goal (it is not feasible).

The goal of replacing fossil fuels with green energy is to keep the temperature of the earth from increasing.

Big difference.

It depends how you define increasing the temperature of the world. If I predict that the earth's temperature being raised by lets say two degrees via some means and end up doing it via some technology and action taken, then I am in effect lowering the temperature that would have been if that change hadn't occurred, right? In fact. I think that either way it will have to be huge leaps of technology breakthroughs and a ton of money to even touch dropping the earth's temperature one or two degrees. Solar and batteries are not the technology that I am talkiing about either. SOmething has to happen on a much greater scale. Better think nuclear, hydrogen, and elsewhere.

[dbroncos78087]

You realize the closing down of the Keystone pipeline does nothing to change the amount of oil being transported in this country. It just makes the transport of that oil less efficient and less "environmentally friendly". The oil is being transported by rail or truck and both of those methods require diesel to run.

Less environmentally friendly than drilling pipes into water tables? Good sir...

[Crovash]

It depends how you define increasing the temperature of the world. If I predict that the earth's temperature being raised by lets say two degrees via some means and end up doing it via some technology and action taken, then I am in effect lowering the temperature that would have been if that change hadn't occurred, right?

Sophistry in its purest (and most dangerous form).

[valade16]

What are you talking about? You literally just asked me where the tax revenues are going and I showed you how tax revenues were used towards transition to renewable energy as what was said by PM Trudeau and what he implemented. I have never said that Trudeau has never said pumping more oil is directly good for the environment. He said that pumping more oil grows the economy while using revenue to transition to cleaner energy (as per the policies he has since implemented).

I understand Canada's initiatives. I'm asking if the taxes from the Keystone Pipeline are included.

You also see the inherent problem of tying the funding of renewable energy to fossil fuel energy taxes right/ You then cannot get rid of the fossil fuel energy because then you'll no longer have the money for the renewable energy?

If we approved the Keystone Pipeline, when do you envision it going out of service?

Some of the technology already exist or is in production already. It’s not a “hope we discover technology”. A lot of it is in the SRED phase already.

Then stop saying things you don't mean or are untrue.

Theoretically you don’t have to but if you do not increase supply with increased demand then you will accomplish increased cost. Which means you have to give more tax breaks (so that they have more money to spend to offset the additional cost), which means less government revenue for other services. Again, which department should I take from to make this work?

That's an interesting question. As a way of reply, I'd say: whatever department you can afford to and/or is less important. Are you saying that every single dollar of money spent by your government goes to things that are more important than global warming? If so, we have a prioritization problem, not a scarcity problem.

You mean balancing the needs that others care about as well? It’s a bit disingenuous to say that it’s “my problem” as if not being concerned about not affecting other people is something so problematic. That is how democratic system works.

Again, if your standard is they cannot be inconvenienced at all in any way you are not balancing anything. It is your problem, because you are very concerned with not affecting anyone today and completely indifferent to affecting anyone in the future.

But that’s so generic and that’s why I’m struggling having this discussion. Again, what are those economic impacts to make it work and what are the arguments to the byproducts of those decisions Like something as simple as what I’ve already asked hasn’t been answered. If you implement tax breaks for companies doing renewable energy, how do you offset the reduction in revenue and how do you handle the chain reaction. I didn’t go through all 64 pages but the article doesn’t go into that level of detail unless you can help direct me there.

What level of detail do you want? Do you want me to write the United States Climate Bill right here and right now? I can't give the level of specificity that comes with a 1,000 page bill. I can in general terms tell you the effects and what needs to be done.

But that is all that is needed at this point. The first step to solving a problem is committing that it needs to be solved. Once you commit to a course of action, coming up with solutions becomes exponentially easier. If you don't commit to solving the problem and instead come up with the solutions first, you dismiss any solution that isn't absolutely perfect in your eyes and nothing gets done. This is a defeatist attitude.

The question is: is it possible. It seems as if you're saying it's not. If someone put a gun to your head and said "find a way for the US to spend more on climate change and reduce CO2" would your response be "well you may as well just shoot me or it can't be done" or would you somehow find a way to make this supposedly impossible task happen?

But you just suggested You're like "sure we should do something about it, only if it doesn't affect me or the economy or anyone in any way” earlier in your post. That doesn’t mean I’m not listening to scientist. That means I am listening to a hundred other people who think their problem takes priority over other people.

Part of making decisions means compromising. My suggestions may not prioritize certain parties over another but that’s a hell of a lot different than saying I am not listening to other people or I am doing it in a way that is dismissive of issues. That feels like an “American” way of doing politics.

Yes, decision making requires compromise. It's you who doesn't want to compromise. Saying "we can only do things so long as they don't affect anyone at the moment" is not compromising.

I agree, it definitely feels like an "American" way of doing politics. So why are you doing it that way?

Some of those goals were put in place before COVID19 and the war on Ukraine. That usually means pivoting shorter term goals but maintaining longer term ones, which I have tried to keep towards (and still falls in line with Elon Musk’s timelines, who will probably build those factories anyway).

We can keep going in circles about this but let's start with the fundamentals. Using the policies in place in that artcle, tell me the economic impact of those decisions and the byproduct of those decisions, especially in this current marco environment (significant inflation plus a proxy war happening).

I agree, let's start with the fundamentals. But to do so requires you to start even further back than what you're asking for now.

We must start with: What will be the future effects on the planet and the world's population if we don't combat global warming or hit the targets our scientists are stating need to be hit.

Tell me the effect you think will happen to the world's population in the future if we fail to act. This way it will put in perspective the severity of the issue we are facing and will put any solutions (and their effects today) into perspective.

[metswon69]

How about if the federal government dictate that each American has to give up half of their paycheck whatever that is to send to the federal government to pay for reducing the temperature of the globe by two degrees. that is the target that I've read will cause the end of the world via global warming? Okay with you? It might force you to leave and sell your house for peanuts but hey, its for a great cause, right? This is the SCIENCE John Kerry and Greta Girl tell us. We believe these people, right? Who is the Fauci equivalent as this Green science expert?

Except that's just more of your hyperbole. Something you've mastered.

I believe the scientific research that says the Earth is warming at a rate that will have cataclysmic consequences, especially if we keep industrializing at the rate we are. It probably won't happen in our lifetime but I would worry for those who live 100 years from now. Are you asking me who I trust? The science or the bat **** places you get much of your rhetoric from? Take a wild guess who wins that fight.

[Raps18-19 Champ]

I understand Canada's initiatives. I'm asking if the taxes from the Keystone Pipeline are included.

You also see the inherent problem of tying the funding of renewable energy to fossil fuel energy taxes right/ You then cannot get rid of the fossil fuel energy because then you'll no longer have the money for the renewable energy?

If we approved the Keystone Pipeline, when do you envision it going out of service?

1. Yes, taxes from pipeline would have given to initiatives. As the name suggest, the Climate Incentive Fund is funded by carbon tax, of which pipelines would be subject to.

2. That's not exactly how it works. Of course, there is a level of dependence in funding from carbon tax but afterwards when renewable energy can sustain itself (which requires time, investment and technologic, then you no longer need the funds from the oil. Ie you can use the carbon tax proceeds to build a nuclear power plant (which is one of the cleanest energies in the world) but once the powerplants are operating, you can use the powerplant to power power grids that were previously powered by oil/gas.

3. It will go out of service when we have the alternatives in place. For cars, that will be easy because Elon musk envisioned 20-25 years. If we have boats and planes that can be powered by battery, then people will go to the alternative and demand from oil will die off. That can't start without technological advancements.

Then stop saying things you don't mean or are untrue.

I'm not sure what this relates to but I'm not going to bother entertaining.

That's an interesting question. As a way of reply, I'd say: whatever department you can afford to and/or is less important. Are you saying that every single dollar of money spent by your government goes to things that are more important than global warming? If so, we have a prioritization problem, not a scarcity problem.

But that's such a *****y answer to provide. It's so vague and non-comittal.

Let me ask again, which department would you actually take away from and how would you handle the backlash? Like I personally have no problem if Canada took funding dedicated to say homelessness to funnel the money instead to renewable energy but do I just tell social activists the lives of homeless people don't mean as much? I have no problem taking it away from military spending (we dont have a big one anyway) but we are in a legitimate proxy war right now so not sure how feasible that is (more people would probably die in this war). I have no problem taking it away for Indigenous related spending and I would love to tell them that their social concerns and what happened to them in the past dont mean as much as the environment.

Most governments operate on a deficit (sometimes driven by inefficient spending) but it is definitely a scarcity problem as well.

Again, if your standard is they cannot be inconvenienced at all in any way you are not balancing anything. It is your problem, because you are very concerned with not affecting anyone today and completely indifferent to affecting anyone in the future.

Yes, because trying to position the world with better technology in the future (ie building mega factories of batteries) is indifferent to anyone in the future.

Again, just because you do not agree wiht my strategy shouldn't be painted to say that I am disregarding the concerns.

What level of detail do you want? Do you want me to write the United States Climate Bill right here and right now? I can't give the level of specificity that comes with a 1,000 page bill. I can in general terms tell you the effects and what needs to be done.

You've made them so generic that it has little practical application and makes it difficult to work with or have any meaningful discussion. Like "taking away from departments who can afford it" is not practical in any sort of society. With the economy in shables at the moment, am I really support to just take "Do you really think if your actual desire was to reduce CO2 emissions by 2025 that you couldn't find an economically viable way to get it done?" at face value?

But that is all that is needed at this point. The first step to solving a problem is committing that it needs to be solved. Once you commit to a course of action, coming up with solutions becomes exponentially easier. If you don't commit to solving the problem and instead come up with the solutions first, you dismiss any solution that isn't absolutely perfect in your eyes and nothing gets done. This is a defeatist attitude.

The question is: is it possible. It seems as if you're saying it's not. If someone put a gun to your head and said "find a way for the US to spend more on climate change and reduce CO2" would your response be "well you may as well just shoot me or it can't be done" or would you somehow find a way to make this supposedly impossible task happen?

I did commit to the problem. The solution I provided was commitment I made was focused on building renewable energy faster.

The actual meat of the issue is the execution plan. Like my suggestion requires an upfront cost, of which will require doing things like cutting down trees, digging mines, shipping stuff around, etc. It requires maybe 2025 goals not be met so long as I can keep 2050 goals. That's where you have to deal with issues that come up as you try to execute your plan. If you don't like using carbon tax to fund renewable energy, that's perfectly fine. Give me another alternative on how to do that then?

You haven't made any legit explanations on how you would do that or deal with the issues that would arise. I believe you have suggested we should stop pumping oil tomorrow and gradually decline to zero (by 2050). That's perfectly fine problem and solution. But you lacked in explaining the execution plan to actually get there and what the consequences are. How do you support an economy that will stop pumping gas by 2050? Will be have the technology so we can continue to do international trade? The questions ccan go on and on.

Yes, decision making requires compromise. It's you who doesn't want to compromise. Saying "we can only do things so long as they don't affect anyone at the moment" is not compromising.

I agree, it definitely feels like an "American" way of doing politics. So why are you doing it that way?

Another comment not worth addressing. I have only suggested ways to develop renewable technology.

I agree, let's start with the fundamentals. But to do so requires you to start even further back than what you're asking for now.

We must start with: What will be the future effects on the planet and the world's population if we don't combat global warming or hit the targets our scientists are stating need to be hit.

Tell me the effect you think will happen to the world's population in the future if we fail to act. This way it will put in perspective the severity of the issue we are facing and will put any solutions (and their effects today) into perspective.

If we don't act, the world collapses (You will never find a post that suggest I do not believe that). The solution that I have to address that is to develop technology faster.

Now I've told you how I think we can develop faster, some of which has tactics which you do not agree (ie using pipeline revenues to invest in battery plants, nuclear plants, etc) with and that's fine.

But now you tell me what your solution is (I believe you said a few pages back something along the lines of reduce pumping gas tomorrow and declining till we dont pump gas anymore by 2050), but more importantly, what your execution plan is to do so. And tell me how feasible and realistic they are in this current world. And something a little bit more substantial than "Do you really think if your actual desire was to reduce CO2 emissions by 2025 that you couldn't find an economically viable way to get it done?"

[valade16]

1. Yes, taxes from pipeline would have given to initiatives. As the name suggest, the Climate Incentive Fund is funded by carbon tax, of which pipelines would be subject to.

2. That's not exactly how it works. Of course, there is a level of dependence in funding from carbon tax but afterwards when renewable energy can sustain itself (which requires time, investment and technologic, then you no longer need the funds from the oil. Ie you can use the carbon tax proceeds to build a nuclear power plant (which is one of the cleanest energies in the world) but once the powerplants are operating, you can use the powerplant to power power grids that were previously powered by oil/gas.

3. It will go out of service when we have the alternatives in place. For cars, that will be easy because Elon musk envisioned 20-25 years. If we have boats and planes that can be powered by battery, then people will go to the alternative and demand from oil will die off. That can't start without technological advancements.

I'm not sure what this relates to but I'm not going to bother entertaining.

It is 2022. 20-25 years puts us at 2042-2045. So I was correct. Your plan is to keep using and burning fossil fuels business as usual until the technology catches up and then start ramping down.

You realize the 2050 initiative calls for the exact opposite correct? You support the 2050 carbon neutral goal but you don't have any practical way to get there. Going carbon neutral isn't something you can just flip on in a day, it takes time to get there. That's why the scientists determined 2050 was a feasible date, not because that's somehow the opportune time (it's not, earlier is definitely better), but that if we started today it would take to 2050 to get there. Your proposal of starting in earnest in 2042 is not what they had in mind.

But that's such a *****y answer to provide. It's so vague and non-comittal.

Let me ask again, which department would you actually take away from and how would you handle the backlash? Like I personally have no problem if Canada took funding dedicated to say homelessness to funnel the money instead to renewable energy but do I just tell social activists the lives of homeless people don't mean as much? I have no problem taking it away from military spending (we dont have a big one anyway) but we are in a legitimate proxy war right now so not sure how feasible that is (more people would probably die in this war). I have no problem taking it away for Indigenous related spending and I would love to tell them that their social concerns and what happened to them in the past dont mean as much as the environment.

Most governments operate on a deficit (sometimes driven by inefficient spending) but it is definitely a scarcity problem as well.

Why act like it's impossible and unconscionable to take funding from other areas and then when pressed give a list of several areas you'd be OK taking funding from? Obviously, it's possible to take funding from other places, so why were you asking which specific ones to take from? I'm willing to compromise on where the money comes from.

If we are talking the US, we should take money from our military, of which we spend vastly more than anyone, we should take some money from foreign aid, local government funding, rebates and tax breaks for businesses, and via increased taxes on the wealthy. If we're talking Canada, you'd know where the money goes that you can take better than me.

Was that sufficiently detailed enough?

Yes, because trying to position the world with better technology in the future (ie building mega factories of batteries) is indifferent to anyone in the future.

Again, just because you do not agree wiht my strategy shouldn't be painted to say that I am disregarding the concerns.

It's not the positioning them with better technology via the building of mega factories for batteries that is the problem, it's that doing that is the only thing you're proposing while just burning the same amount of fossil fuels in the meantime. I also support the investment in those factories, but that can't be all we do.

You've made them so generic that it has little practical application and makes it difficult to work with or have any meaningful discussion. Like "taking away from departments who can afford it" is not practical in any sort of society. With the economy in shables at the moment, am I really support to just take "Do you really think if your actual desire was to reduce CO2 emissions by 2025 that you couldn't find an economically viable way to get it done?" at face value?

Yes, you are. Name a time in the past 20 years that you think we should have begun based on the economy and world geopolitical landscape that would have made it an opportune time? "We have to worry about Ukraine now", well back then we had to worry about Iraq and Afghanistan. "The economy is in shambles now", well, it was even worse from 2008 on.

Point is: If you're looking for a reason to say "we can't do it now" you will always find one. If we can't start now, OK, when do you propose we do?

I did commit to the problem. The solution I provided was commitment I made was focused on building renewable energy faster.

The actual meat of the issue is the execution plan. Like my suggestion requires an upfront cost, of which will require doing things like cutting down trees, digging mines, shipping stuff around, etc. It requires maybe 2025 goals not be met so long as I can keep 2050 goals. That's where you have to deal with issues that come up as you try to execute your plan. If you don't like using carbon tax to fund renewable energy, that's perfectly fine. Give me another alternative on how to do that then?

You haven't made any legit explanations on how you would do that or deal with the issues that would arise. I believe you have suggested we should stop pumping oil tomorrow and gradually decline to zero (by 2050). That's perfectly fine problem and solution. But you lacked in explaining the execution plan to actually get there and what the consequences are. How do you support an economy that will stop pumping gas by 2050? Will be have the technology so we can continue to do international trade? The questions ccan go on and on.

Another comment not worth addressing. I have only suggested ways to develop renewable technology.

To be clear: You are not talking about blowing the 2025 goals to meet the 2050 goals. You are talking about blowing the 2025 goals, the 2030 goals, and the 2040 goals. In short, every goal until the final one. As if we can just all go to sleep one day completely dependent on fossil fuels and wake up the next not dependent at all. I don't think you grasp how long the transition will take.

That is why I say what you're proposing is the bare minimum approach.

If we don't act, the world collapses (You will never find a post that suggest I do not believe that). The solution that I have to address that is to develop technology faster.

Now I've told you how I think we can develop faster, some of which has tactics which you do not agree (ie using pipeline revenues to invest in battery plants, nuclear plants, etc) with and that's fine.

But now you tell me what your solution is (I believe you said a few pages back something along the lines of reduce pumping gas tomorrow and declining till we dont pump gas anymore by 2050), but more importantly, what your execution plan is to do so. And tell me how feasible and realistic they are in this current world. And something a little bit more substantial than "Do you really think if your actual desire was to reduce CO2 emissions by 2025 that you couldn't find an economically viable way to get it done?"

OK, by your own words, the stakes are if we don't do what is necessary the world collapses. And your weighing of the consequences vs the costs now is "I want to prevent the world from collapsing only so long as it doesn't inconvenience people today in any way"

Do you see how completely out of balance the cost your willing to bear today given the consequences tomorrow?

I must confess, there is remarkably little urgency on your part given your belief that the world collapsing hangs in the balance...

[Raps18-19 Champ]

It is 2022. 20-25 years puts us at 2042-2045. So I was correct. Your plan is to keep using and burning fossil fuels business as usual until the technology catches up and then start ramping down.

You realize the 2050 initiative calls for the exact opposite correct? You support the 2050 carbon neutral goal but you don't have any practical way to get there. Going carbon neutral isn't something you can just flip on in a day, it takes time to get there. That's why the scientists determined 2050 was a feasible date, not because that's somehow the opportune time (it's not, earlier is definitely better), but that if we started today it would take to 2050 to get there. Your proposal of starting in earnest in 2042 is not what they had in mind.

You may have missed the part where I said that we should give them the resources to speed up the timelines, which means it would be build before 2042. Ie so if more people drove EV, if we can build more nuclear plants so less buildings use oil, etc.

Why act like it's impossible and unconscionable to take funding from other areas and then when pressed give a list of several areas you'd be OK taking funding from? Obviously, it's possible to take funding from other places, so why were you asking which specific ones to take from? I'm willing to compromise on where the money comes from.

Because in the real world, that would matter. It's not like everyone is going to just be like, "Okay, Global warming takes precedence over our needs". That's not how society works. If you or I were to implement policies (which is the role I am thinking in, and hopefully so are you), then it's not as simple as taking money away from 1 and putting it somewhere else.

If we are talking the US, we should take money from our military, of which we spend vastly more than anyone, we should take some money from foreign aid, local government funding, rebates and tax breaks for businesses, and via increased taxes on the wealthy. If we're talking Canada, you'd know where the money goes that you can take better than me.

Was that sufficiently detailed enough?

Great, so lets use these are starting points:

-have you considered the implications if we reduced military spending as it relates to the proxy war we are in? Ie how do european countries (some of the leaders in environmental initiative) continue their development if they get invaded?
-What about the jobs lost due to reduced rebates/tax breaks on businesses? (Salary expenses often are some of the highest on F/S and one of the ones that companies look to cut when costs increase). Will this trigger the government printing out more money and generate significant inflation?
-I would also like to tax the rich but how do you handle it if you tax them so much they move their operations to less taxed countries (because stuff like this does happen). You can only control US operations but not everyone will cooperate so companies have options to move to other countries (ie Cayman island, etc).

Did you also consider that you probably need to take a lot more because you are increasing price of oil, which in turn will cause significant inflation due to supply chain issues that would make it exponentially more expensive?

If you were a politician and you want to implement these, you have to have practical solutions to this.

It's not the positioning them with better technology via the building of mega factories for batteries that is the problem, it's that doing that is the only thing you're proposing while just burning the same amount of fossil fuels in the meantime. I also support the investment in those factories, but that can't be all we do.

I highlighted that as that is the biggest driver in society. Technological advancement is advanced in certain areas and merely require investments (ie building those factories, etc so everyone can drive EV) while technology is severely lacking in other areas (ie ships and planes). I am hedging that we build technology that allows us to reduce reliance on oil at a faster rate (because we are going to need oil for a while).

If there was a way we could develop those technology faster without pumping more oil, I would love to see it but it would probably cost exponentially more (meaning you have to take more from other places). If you can tell me how we get there then I am all game for it. Just come up with x times more money than you probably needed to.

Yes, you are. Name a time in the past 20 years that you think we should have begun based on the economy and world geopolitical landscape that would have made it an opportune time? "We have to worry about Ukraine now", well back then we had to worry about Iraq and Afghanistan. "The economy is in shambles now", well, it was even worse from 2008 on.

Point is: If you're looking for a reason to say "we can't do it now" you will always find one. If we can't start now, OK, when do you propose we do?

This doesn't make sense because I have suggested we build it earlier on multiple occasions but in a systematic way. It's not just a dive head first issue. I have made multiple suggestions that make concessions to begin the process. despite the fact that there is a war happening or economic crisis. It may not be as 'gung ho' as your suggestions but thats a lot

To be clear: You are not talking about blowing the 2025 goals to meet the 2050 goals. You are talking about blowing the 2025 goals, the 2030 goals, and the 2040 goals. In short, every goal until the final one. As if we can just all go to sleep one day completely dependent on fossil fuels and wake up the next not dependent at all. I don't think you grasp how long the transition will take.

That is why I say what you're proposing is the bare minimum approach.

Again, that is not true based on my first comment. Suggesting we speed up technology to transition is nowhere near the same as "wake up the next not dependent at all".

If anything, you can also argue if we stop pumping oil by 2050, chances are the technology will not be in place to support supply chain management as ships/planes cant operate without oil but there aren't alternatives to oil powered ships/planes (unless we maybe bring back sailing).

OK, by your own words, the stakes are if we don't do what is necessary the world collapses. And your weighing of the consequences vs the costs now is "I want to prevent the world from collapsing only so long as it doesn't inconvenience people today in any way"

Do you see how completely out of balance the cost your willing to bear today given the consequences tomorrow?

I must confess, there is remarkably little urgency on your part given your belief that the world collapsing hangs in the balance...

Because again, I am hedging that you can prevent those catastrophic events if you invest in the technology. I also have to think about it from a politic POV because politicians are the ones that implement policies and politicians have a responsibility to balance the various concerns of society (even if its not something people should be concerned about to begin with).

Also, the world would collapse if nothing was done, but considering my suggestions make progress by 2050 (well before the world would collapse even if we did nothing), it's not as dramatic as its comes off. But despite that, I am still trying to reach goals in 2050 even if that "world collapse" is well past 2050.

[Raps18-19 Champ]

Just to give an example of how realistic some of the suggestions are, here is the EU that laid out a plan. Rapidly expand technology but still build pipelines (over $10 billion) (and other gas related infrastructure) to support current operations in the interim.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc...t-61497315.amp
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60664799
https://www.ft.com/content/be8d95cc-...b-e9f95685ddc7

"While carbon emissions may rise in the short term, the longer-term aim is a speedier transition to sustainable sources."

The article does mention concerns about how reliance on oil could last longer than needed but if the investments in the renewable energy pays off then most of those concerns should dissipate. But at least she was a bit more realistic in how she awknowledged it.

"But with Germany announcing plans for two new LNG terminals to increase supplies, some experts are worried that this could increase longer term dependency on fossil fuels.

"I think we're living in a tricky time, that there's so much political pressure to make these energy policy decisions," said Prof Paula Kivimaa from the Finnish Environment Institute and the University of Sussex."

It was a way to acknowledge current political issues, keep the economy growing while investing heavily into renewable energy technology and initiatives.

[Bird of Prey]

It's worth pointing out once again that the Keystone Pipeline isn't an oil drill, so there is no new oil being produced by it. It's just transporting the oil a different way. That is it. After weighing the environmental impact, it was a decision made to not allow their permit to continue. So the PM of Canada is probably not going to see an issue with the US allowing oil to be transported in a way that we determined to be environmentally problematic. If I remember correctly, the pipeline went through water tables in some communities, which means that their drinkable water is ****ed if there is an oil spill from within the pipe.

TL;DR: don't conflate an oil pipeline for an oil drill...

Who said that it was an oil drill, genius? And don't just look at it as a different way of transporting oil. It is a much more effective and CHEAPER way of transporting oil than trucking it long distances. Canada wanted the pipeline because it was a helluva lot more cost effective and a safe way of transportation of oil so your opinion about what Canada thought about its cancelation is just not true at all.

[Bird of Prey]

I understand Canada's initiatives. I'm asking if the taxes from the Keystone Pipeline are included.

You also see the inherent problem of tying the funding of renewable energy to fossil fuel energy taxes right/ You then cannot get rid of the fossil fuel energy because then you'll no longer have the money for the renewable energy?

If we approved the Keystone Pipeline, when do you envision it going out of service?



Then stop saying things you don't mean or are untrue.



That's an interesting question. As a way of reply, I'd say: whatever department you can afford to and/or is less important. Are you saying that every single dollar of money spent by your government goes to things that are more important than global warming? If so, we have a prioritization problem, not a scarcity problem.



Again, if your standard is they cannot be inconvenienced at all in any way you are not balancing anything. It is your problem, because you are very concerned with not affecting anyone today and completely indifferent to affecting anyone in the future.



What level of detail do you want? Do you want me to write the United States Climate Bill right here and right now? I can't give the level of specificity that comes with a 1,000 page bill. I can in general terms tell you the effects and what needs to be done.

But that is all that is needed at this point. The first step to solving a problem is committing that it needs to be solved. Once you commit to a course of action, coming up with solutions becomes exponentially easier. If you don't commit to solving the problem and instead come up with the solutions first, you dismiss any solution that isn't absolutely perfect in your eyes and nothing gets done. This is a defeatist attitude.

The question is: is it possible. It seems as if you're saying it's not. If someone put a gun to your head and said "find a way for the US to spend more on climate change and reduce CO2" would your response be "well you may as well just shoot me or it can't be done" or would you somehow find a way to make this supposedly impossible task happen?



Yes, decision making requires compromise. It's you who doesn't want to compromise. Saying "we can only do things so long as they don't affect anyone at the moment" is not compromising.

I agree, it definitely feels like an "American" way of doing politics. So why are you doing it that way?




I agree, let's start with the fundamentals. But to do so requires you to start even further back than what you're asking for now.

We must start with: What will be the future effects on the planet and the world's population if we don't combat global warming or hit the targets our scientists are stating need to be hit.

Tell me the effect you think will happen to the world's population in the future if we fail to act. This way it will put in perspective the severity of the issue we are facing and will put any solutions (and their effects today) into perspective.

Have any of you guys ever seen a FACTUAL work-up of describing the cost of developing the technology followed by a realistic estimate of the time table for designing, manufacturing, and installing the technology and equipment to power the grids and power sources involved? I haven't, have you guys? I say that before any country spends one dollar on this earth shaking project, there need to be answers regarding should this even be attempted on the scale necessary to "save the world" from a perceived end of days type threat to humanity.