Global protests over climate change

[samran]

@Tep

In any case, can't elites have a point of view and express it?

Once again, I never said they shouldn't. I'm making the point, since you brought in the Vietnam War and the UK poll tax protests, that there is no comparison between those, genuinely mass, movements which had the capacity to bring about change, and the climate nimrods out for a pleasant Sunday stroll in Manhattan.

Liberalism underpins western thought and has done since the philosophers of Athens were being ostracised and forced to drink poison.

Come on. You can't really believe that there is any philosophical connection between the liberalism of ancient Greece or the Renaissance, and what calls itself "liberalism" today, which is the virtual opposite. Today's liberals call themselves liberals in the same way that the country is named the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Liberalism these days is more like a kidnap gang threatening a hostage: "Do as I say and you won't get hurt."

I do not think that climate change is or should be a belief system.

Well, it is. Where else but in a belief system do you get constant vilifying and demonizing of everyone who disagrees? How can it be science when one side says purely "The science is settled. There is no debate."

As one smart scientist noted: "If it's settled, it's not science; if it's science, it's not settled."

You use the word liberal as it is pretty much understood due to its modern misuse in the US. A bit like the word 'fanny' I guess which has an entirely different meaning in the rest of the English speaking world.

It's meaning in the rest of the world is somewhat more traditional, to the extent that the current conservative government in Australia is predominantly populated by members of the 'liberal party'.

Edited September 24, 2014 by samran

[canuckamuck]

Climate Change is nothing more than a quasi-political movement promoted by Lemming Liberals and Leftist Control Freaks who only want to CONTROL society and 'fundamentally change' it so the world would operate as they see fit... Natural Occurrence Deniers are fanatics who have turned this silliness in to a vengeful Religion and they worship at the alter of pseudo science.

"Natural occurrence deniers" (Nods) that's good. I hope it catches on

[RickBradford]

Control was certainly at the heart of the climate march -- I don't know whether they would have described themselves as "liberals" or not.

There was a meeting held called "Flood Wall Street - Stop Capitalism - End Climate Change", at which various activists presented their "solutions".

As Kwasha Sawant (a Seattle city councillor) said: “We must bring giant corporations into public ownership. You cannot control what you don’t own. A socialist world that will deliver a high standard of living for all.”

Indeed, no, Comrade! Somebody should tell her that they tried that for 70 years in the Soviet Union and look where it got them.

Then Naomi Klein, a well-known author, made it very clear where her priorities lie:

Panel: “Even if climate change issue did not exist, you would be calling for same structural changes?"

Klein: "Yes, I would still be for social justice even if there was not climate change."

It's not about the planet, it's not about the climate, it's not about the science, simply about control and money.

[Tep]

@Tep

In any case, can't elites have a point of view and express it?

Once again, I never said they shouldn't. I'm making the point, since you brought in the Vietnam War and the UK poll tax protests, that there is no comparison between those, genuinely mass, movements which had the capacity to bring about change, and the climate nimrods out for a pleasant Sunday stroll in Manhattan.

Liberalism underpins western thought and has done since the philosophers of Athens were being ostracised and forced to drink poison.

Come on. You can't really believe that there is any philosophical connection between the liberalism of ancient Greece or the Renaissance, and what calls itself "liberalism" today, which is the virtual opposite. Today's liberals call themselves liberals in the same way that the country is named the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Liberalism these days is more like a kidnap gang threatening a hostage: "Do as I say and you won't get hurt."

I do not think that climate change is or should be a belief system.

Well, it is. Where else but in a belief system do you get constant vilifying and demonizing of everyone who disagrees? How can it be science when one side says purely "The science is settled. There is no debate."

As one smart scientist noted: "If it's settled, it's not science; if it's science, it's not settled."

I accept that you do not view the climate change protestors as serious. I don't agree and I believe they are having an influence on the public policy debate.

Liberal principles certainly do underly western thought and there is a direct line between the Ancient Greeks and the collapse of the feudal system and its divine right of kings to the writers and thinkers of the so called Age of Reason, including Thomas Paine who directly informed the sentiments of the American Revolution and the drafting of the Declaration of Independence; then to the development of universal suffrage in western democratic political systems one the one person one vote principle (even for non property owners, blacks and women).

What are liberal principles? They include tolerance, fairness and equity. At least according to my half remembered Uni lectures on the topic. But I agree with them and am confounded by the anti-liberals who object to these principles. Liberal thought says we should tolerate others and their opinions; we should treat everyone fairly and equitably. How can this be a slur on people?

I think Samran got it right. The word liberal now has nothing to do with liberalism and is entirely influenced by a US centric view related to a corporatist view of the political system. I just cannot relate your analysis of liberalism to any sense of reality. I wonder if we are talking about different things.

Who is the smart scientist that you reference? My understanding of the scientific method is that an hypothesis is proposed; experiments made to demonstrate the hypothesis; these experiments to be replicated by others under the same conditions; the hypothesis is then accepted or 'settled' until disproven or subsumed into some other greater hypothesis. So being settled is part of the scientific method then. Unless your smart scientist has some other process for engaging in scientific enquiry. I am happy for climate scientists to continue to collect data, prepare models, argue hypotheses and synthesise antitheses. It is what they should be doing and most of them do it without calling each other bad names (at least in academic journals). My point remains that at a public poicy level, the issues of climate change are accepted by the majority of decision makers and people who matter and I don't see this changing. What is up for debate is the way to deal with the issue and you raise this in a later post. I think it would make more sense to debate the response to climate change issue than argue whether climate change is real or not. It is real for the purpose of public policy and denying this marginalises you from the discussion.

[Ulysses G.]

Liberal thought says we should tolerate others and their opinions; we should treat everyone fairly and equitably.

The problem is that too many liberals think that tolerance only applies their views and not ones that they disagree with. The far-left can be just as fanatical as the far right.

[Tep]

Control was certainly at the heart of the climate march -- I don't know whether they would have described themselves as "liberals" or not.

There was a meeting held called "Flood Wall Street - Stop Capitalism - End Climate Change", at which various activists presented their "solutions".

As Kwasha Sawant (a Seattle city councillor) said: “We must bring giant corporations into public ownership. You cannot control what you don’t own. A socialist world that will deliver a high standard of living for all.”

Indeed, no, Comrade! Somebody should tell her that they tried that for 70 years in the Soviet Union and look where it got them.

Then Naomi Klein, a well-known author, made it very clear where her priorities lie:

Panel: “Even if climate change issue did not exist, you would be calling for same structural changes?"

Klein: "Yes, I would still be for social justice even if there was not climate change."

It's not about the planet, it's not about the climate, it's not about the science, simply about control and money.

Even with the collapse of the Soviet Union you can't stop the Marxists from re-emerging. I have spent my professional life in Thailand dealing with the state ownership and operation of infrastructure businesses and services. I am not a fan of perpetuating the state enterprise model. Neither am I a fan of unregulated private ownership. I believe in markets and in regulation where markets do not exist (e.g. natural monopolies). I guess I am rather right wing on this.

Can we not argue with the Kwasha Sawants and Naomi Kleins of the world on the issues and still respect and tolerate their opinion? Much of it is in any case a reaction against the corporatist economic model that has allowed power and wealth to concentrate. Shouting at them only means that we might miss something useful that they might possibly say.

How can the polarisation of issues into the left/right divide backed up by incessant noise from vested interests be healthy?

[Tep]

Liberal thought says we should tolerate others and their opinions; we should treat everyone fairly and equitably.

The problem is that too many liberals think that tolerance only applies their views and not ones that they disagree with. The far-left can be just as fanatical as the far right.

Yes. "I will no longer tolerate your intolerance". A sticky one. Something I have often thought when I read some of your posts on some of the hot button issues that drive people to excess. I think it might be more difficult begin a liberal than a non liberal (I won't say conservative because the far right is not that). Perhaps we are more disciplined so we can practise what we preach? Or not.

[F430murci]

Come on. You can't really be letting your ideological position blind you to the idea of protest as part of public policy and social and political change? The anti Vietnam war protests, the UK poll tax protests, the red and yellow protests here in Thailand. You may hate what they are saying or the look or the politics of the people who are saying it, but those voices do contribute to decisions being made. I have been involved in consultative processes here that in some cases could have turned violent and in many cases were very uncomfortable for officials. Some of these processes included mob demonstrations and marches.

Not at all - I'm just saying that elitist minorities coming out every year or so at the weekend to air their personal vanity projects and demand their right to a Green lifestyle that somebody else pays for aren't going to change anything. They are not in any sense a people's movement, which is why they trumpet the term in all their agit-prop.

I don't see politicians suddenly abandoning capitalism on the "demands" of these publicity-seeking Green zealots. Even the Occupy mobs had more motivation than these climate people.

No, the smart ones are building solar power stations backed up with new lithium technology batteries and making money off it.

Haha, so true! Kind of funny how everyone walks around denying any problems, but most are acting as if there is a problem without acknowledging it.

I recently bought a Tesla to replace my daily driver that averaged about 12 to 14 mpg. My wife finally beat me into submission on the recycle thing. Friends of mine that own architect and contracting companies are focusing heavily on green, energy efficient and sustainability just to remain competitive because everyone wants it now.

Prius and hybrid cars are everywhere. I live in a suburb of Nashville, part of the year, that is full of musicians, actors, business owners, health care executives and etc.. The Bentleys that used to be everywhere are being replaced by Cayenne hybrids, Teslas, Lexus hybrids, Infiniti hybrids and Prius are everywhere. The new Tesla dealer cannot keep cars in stock.

Fact is, hybrid and electric technology is advancing rapidly and being implemented in awesome vehicles at competitive prices. Electric and hybrid vehicles will soon take over the market in US regardless of this mindless debate that typically centers more on personal bias and manipulation of data than common sense or reality.

BTW, I saw that a big chunk of glacier broke off Mount Shasta and caused some flooding recently due to 9 straight months of temps and drought well above the average. I bet that was a crazy site.

Edited September 24, 2014 by F430murci

[canuckamuck]

I'm a committed skeptic, but I am fascinated by the potential of hybrids. The Porsche 918 is sick!

Edited September 24, 2014 by canuckamuck

[RickBradford]

My understanding of the scientific method is that an hypothesis is proposed; experiments made to demonstrate the hypothesis; these experiments to be replicated by others under the same conditions; the hypothesis is then accepted or 'settled' until disproven or subsumed into some other greater hypothesis.

Quite right. And that is precisely what has not happened in climate science. Climate science relies utterly on climate models, aka computer programs. The climate computer models have consistently proved wildly inaccurate (and always in the same direction, exaggerating the warming), so to say "the science is settled" is the only way to protect the policy agenda, which is always top-down, regulatory, burdensome and anti-capitalist.

As that well-known climate expert Leonardo di Caprio told the UN this week: "This disaster has grown beyond the choices that individuals make."

So it was probably a good thing that he decided not to mention the individual choices he has made: his two apartments in New York and mansions in Hollywood and Palm Springs, the private jets and his renting the fifth biggest yacht (a mere $100 million) in the world from an oil billionaire.

I think it would make more sense to debate the response to climate change issue than argue whether climate change is real or not. It is real for the purpose of public policy and denying this marginalises you from the discussion.

In older threads I have stated that I do think climate change is real and that mankind affects the climate. I have yet to see any evidence that suggests it is an immediate crisis.

In fact, the amount of hyperbole, falsification, data manipulation, obstruction, chicanery, demonization and vilification which is the hallmark of the "climate consensus" supporters reinforce my suspicion that it is not a crisis; rather an opportunity to impose a political agenda under the faux guise of "saving the planet".

In fact, they make no secret of it.

As the EU’s "climate commissioner", Connie Hedegaard, recently put it: "Let’s say that scientists several decades from now said, 'We were wrong, it’s not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of the things you have to do to combat climate change?"

Or United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) official Ottmar Edenhofer: "But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."

Well, there are those of us ("dissenters", in your phrase) who oppose this wanton appropriation of assets by unelected bureaucrats for purely spurious reasons.

[F430murci]

I'm a committed skeptic, but I am fascinated by the potential of hybrids. The Porsche 918 is sick!

Yes it is! The BMW i8 ain't to shabby either.

[Tep]

My understanding of the scientific method is that an hypothesis is proposed; experiments made to demonstrate the hypothesis; these experiments to be replicated by others under the same conditions; the hypothesis is then accepted or 'settled' until disproven or subsumed into some other greater hypothesis.

Quite right. And that is precisely what has not happened in climate science. Climate science relies utterly on climate models, aka computer programs. The climate computer models have consistently proved wildly inaccurate (and always in the same direction, exaggerating the warming), so to say "the science is settled" is the only way to protect the policy agenda, which is always top-down, regulatory, burdensome and anti-capitalist.

As that well-known climate expert Leonardo di Caprio told the UN this week: "This disaster has grown beyond the choices that individuals make."

So it was probably a good thing that he decided not to mention the individual choices he has made: his two apartments in New York and mansions in Hollywood and Palm Springs, the private jets and his renting the fifth biggest yacht (a mere $100 million) in the world from an oil billionaire.

I think it would make more sense to debate the response to climate change issue than argue whether climate change is real or not. It is real for the purpose of public policy and denying this marginalises you from the discussion.

In older threads I have stated that I do think climate change is real and that mankind affects the climate. I have yet to see any evidence that suggests it is an immediate crisis.

In fact, the amount of hyperbole, falsification, data manipulation, obstruction, chicanery, demonization and vilification which is the hallmark of the "climate consensus" supporters reinforce my suspicion that it is not a crisis; rather an opportunity to impose a political agenda under the faux guise of "saving the planet".

In fact, they make no secret of it.

As the EU’s "climate commissioner", Connie Hedegaard, recently put it: "Let’s say that scientists several decades from now said, 'We were wrong, it’s not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of the things you have to do to combat climate change?"

Or United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) official Ottmar Edenhofer: "But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."

Well, there are those of us ("dissenters", in your phrase) who oppose this wanton appropriation of assets by unelected bureaucrats for purely spurious reasons.

Good post. Thought provoking. Reminds me of the stuff you used to post a long time back before they turned into slagfests.

For me and my fellow travellers (as far as I know), climate change is all about environmental policy. In this context, the impact of human activity on the environment should be regarded. I take a very simple, Economists view to this and believe that the environmental and social impacts of human activity have a cost that can be established and these costs should be borne by those who benefit from that activity. The problem, as most Economists are aware, is that very rarely are the true costs reflected in assessments. This is particularly true in the energy sector, where subsidies are rife and these subsidies create perverse incentives and moral hazards. The solution to me is simple. Its application not so much. So I could never really see the reason for all this fuss over climate change. To me there is a clear way forward. Clearly, however the left/right divide will agonise over cap and trade vs carbon pricing vs free market solutions and all the associated difficulties, problems and unknowns in the implementation of these sorts of solutions.

Your other point is the politicisation of the agenda of climate change. You object to some people using the climate change issue to push their social agenda, specifically the redistribution of wealth. This seems to me to be a sort of North/South argument with a hint of Euro-socialism (and maybe ex-colonial guilt) thrown in. These are new issues for me and you are clearly across them more than I am. But I wonder why you object to this, when clearly you apply your own capitalist interpretation on the climate change agenda to maintain the current corportist status quo. So we are back to ideology. I wonder at the context of the quote you provide from the IPCC official but take it at face value.

I am reminded of an occasion when I was invited to join a seminar hosted by the UN in Sri Lanka to discuss a particular financing mechanism. Won't bore you with the technical details. Some may recognise the term public private partnerships. The 3 day talk fest mainly involved bureaucrats who were consumers of donor funds trying to twist this mechanism into a funding source to replace diminishing donor support from traditional sources. They twisted the concept and played semantic games, which included continually add words that start with P (pro-poor etc) to the terminology. They were quite shocked when I explained what the mechanism actually meant in its application. I wasn't invited back. I don't think people who want to use climate change for their redistributive agenda can be stopped from doing this just like you won't be stopped form using the issue to support the corporates and deregulation agenda. As a good liberal, I certainly support the concept of redistribution of wealth. But let's save that for another time.

In any case, I think I have emerged with some greater understanding of your point of view. I do not agree with the political elements of it and I remain firm in my view that we should deal with this as an environmental issue.

[NeverSure]

"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

What kind of replacement energy are people using to charge these electric/hybrid cars? Coal fired power plants? Nuclear where they still really don't know what to do with the spent waste which will remain highly radioactive for the next gazillion years? Dam rivers and kill the fish?

Where is this energy which runs these cars which has no environmental impact?

[Tep]

"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

What kind of replacement energy are people using to charge these electric/hybrid cars? Coal fired power plants? Nuclear where they still really don't know what to do with the spent waste which will remain highly radioactive for the next gazillion years? Dam rivers and kill the fish?

Where is this energy which runs these cars which has no environmental impact?

The argument is not that power for electric cars has no environmental impact, but that the impact is less than cars running on petrol/gasoline.

Electricity is fed into the power grid from a number of different power generating stations using different fuel sources. Each fuel source has a different impact on the environment. Coal and diesel is generally regarded as having a higher impact than gas or hydro with non hydro renewable being the 'cleanest' at lest in terms of the production of the electricity. Analysts argue that the cumulative impact of individual cars running on petrol is higher than the same level of transport provided using grid generated electricity.

An additional advantage of electric cars is that they provide a potential storage option for grid operators and revenue source for owners. It costs less to produce power in off peak times. It is the economics of power production. Cheaper plants are despatched before more expensive plants. So where electricity tariffs are deregulated, you can buy power in the evenings for your car and you can sell it back to th grid in the day time when it is parked at work and the grid operator can manage peak power demand using such storage devices. The US is in the forefront of this type of technology.

Plus I think electric cars like the tesla look pretty cool. Not like the crap that was put out in the 70's and 80's.

[snarky66]

Idiots like obama & kerry deeply believe in this flim-flam. Which just goes to show that they represent less than 10 % of all Americans. The lunatic fringe.

[JDGRUEN]

`

Climate Change is nothing more than a quasi-political movement promoted by Lemming Liberals and Leftist Control Freaks who only want to CONTROL society and 'fundamentally change' it so the world would operate as they see fit... Natural Occurrence Deniers are fanatics who have turned this silliness in to a vengeful Religion and they worship at the alter of pseudo science.

"Natural occurrence deniers" (Nods) that's good. I hope it catches on

Yes "NODs" Natural Occurence Deniers.... The warming periods that came to melt the Ice Ages was from human and humanoid activity - all those camp fires - was enough - well gosh to cause enough C02 to create the melting -- it had to be - nothing natural could have caused that ! ..

But - where did the freezing come from - before the melting ? Global Freezing -- Let's see - what human activity could we find to blame that on... Maybe using Oxygen -- that's it! Nature could never produced Global Freezing and I know it - so you go shut up now ... it is settled science -- got it - it is 02 Damn it.... And the NOD goes on ... I Love Natural Occurrence Deniers --- they make the rest of us look so sensible ...

[JDGRUEN]

The height of hypocrisy: Climate change marchers trash NYC

http://www.gopusa.com/freshink/2014/09/24/the-height-of-hypocrisy-climate-change-marchers-trash-nyc/

[canuckamuck]

"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

What kind of replacement energy are people using to charge these electric/hybrid cars? Coal fired power plants? Nuclear where they still really don't know what to do with the spent waste which will remain highly radioactive for the next gazillion years? Dam rivers and kill the fish?

Where is this energy which runs these cars which has no environmental impact?

These cars mostly produce their own current which is provided by either a gasoline or diesel generator. But the point is that they consume less fuel to create HP. Electric thrust is very efficient with tremendous torque. The Porsche even collects power on braking.

That being said the challenge is now to find less polluting ways to build batteries, which seriously undermine the environmental impact of hybrids. This is not far off.

I am not a greenly, as my posting history will show, but I will celebrate technological achievement, when it creates less pollution (I don't consider CO2 pollution BTW) and especially when it represents an evolutionary step. A simple internal combustion engine is very inefficient.

[RickBradford]

For me and my fellow travellers (as far as I know), climate change is all about environmental policy

................

Your other point is the politicisation of the agenda of climate change. You object to some people using the climate change issue to push their social agenda, specifically the redistribution of wealth.

There are many indications that there is no environmental component to the climate debate, and that it is totally about a political agenda which is essentially supranational, unaccountable, regulatory and anti-free market.

That is, the agenda came first, and supporters then cast around for a suitable justification. Climate change fit the bill perfectly. It is politically correct, it is global, and it targets the cream of the capitalist crop -- the fossil fuel companies.

To politicians, of course, it is like catnip to a cat. By invoking climate change, politicians can suspend for a minute being regarded as sleazy vote-grubbers, and portray themselves as planetary saviours. The ego boost is tremendous. They see themselves as the noble hero in a planetary drama.

This is why the rhetoric is always similarly grandiose, from Kevin Rudd, who in 2007 called climate change "the greatest moral, economic and social challenge of our time", to Ban-Ki Moon, who called it "a defining issue of our time" last weekend.

Liberal journalists love it; they get to parade their environmental credentials; NGOs love it, because they can attract more funding; and bureaucrats love it because it creates make-work for a new tranche of worthless paper-pushers.

But the trick is to disguise this agenda as being genuinely environmental, so a relentless and largely bogus campaign is waged to show stranded polar bears on ice-floes, weeping Bangladeshi villagers looking at withered rice crops, or Carteret Islanders fleeing their homeland in whaleskin boats.

The apex of these efforts came in 2005 when the United Nations solemnly declared that climate change would cause 50 million refugees by 2010. The actual figure, as far as anyone can gauge, was zero.

You will point out that if the climate change supporters have an agenda, and serve vested interests, then so do their opponents in big industry. To which I would reply, this is not a symmetric game. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so if you are going to state that we only have two years in which to take radical action to avoid a "planetary catastrophe" then you'd better be able to back it up. And the climate change establishment has utterly failed to do that, despite a continuous stream of agit-prop from the constituencies above.

I could have put it more simply; from the evidence that I and my fellow-travellers have seen, we have no trust in the good faith of the people pushing the climate agenda. Their methods are like those of second-hand car salesmen, and so that is how we must view them.

Is it about ideology, as you suggest? Absolutely. Everyone brings their own ideology to each situation, and in the case of climate change, the science is so complex and far from settled, that ideology has a proportionately large role to play.

[canuckamuck]

Rick you have written a lot of great posts on this topic, but that one really stands out. Well done

[JDGRUEN]

Sea Ice Sets record... Wow!... I thought it was supposed to get warmer... oh wait a minute ... the climate is changing ... and was all along... You know not far back about 15 years ago or so - it had been getting warmer each year - then it stopped... Oh - okay it was climate change all along ... not some kind of never ending Global Warming - that's a relief! ....

This is similar to what happened in the Great Ice Ages isn't it ? ... but just not so great extremes yet -- It got cold - then colder -- and stayed that way for a long time - then got warm - then got almost hot and the ice melted .... You mean it comes and goes like that Naturally?... Yes Virginia it does... it is called Naturally Occurring Climate Change - but amazing we have Natural Occurrence Deniers ... NODs are people who are just never going to see the truth because they have made Global Warming and Climate Change due to human activity - into a RELIGION and they worship those gods who others cannot see... But they believe in the NOD GOD even if others cannot see the NOD GOD - so the NOD GOD zealots make up data to proved that what is going on is not of natural occurrence...

They are such zealous followers of the NOD GOD that they have become a bit fanatical ... one of their followers a well know man by the name of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently said as he accused skeptical politicians of “selling out the public trust.” “Those guys are doing the Koch Brothers bidding and are against all the evidence of the rational mind, saying global warming does not exit. They are contemptible human beings. I wish there were a law you could punish them with. I don’t think there is a law that you can punish those politicians under.”

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09/21/robert-f-kennedy-jr-wants-to-jail-his-political-opponents-accuses-koch-brothers-of-treason-they-ought-to-be-serving-time-for-it/

***********************************************************

Sea Ice News Volume 5 #6 – Arctic sea ice extent turns the corner for 2014, new high sea ice record set in the Antarctic.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/22/sea-ice-news-volume-5-6-arctic-sea-ice-extent-turns-the-corner-for-2014-new-high-sea-ice-record-set-in-the-antarctic/

[NeverSure]

"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

What kind of replacement energy are people using to charge these electric/hybrid cars? Coal fired power plants? Nuclear where they still really don't know what to do with the spent waste which will remain highly radioactive for the next gazillion years? Dam rivers and kill the fish?

Where is this energy which runs these cars which has no environmental impact?

These cars mostly produce their own current which is provided by either a gasoline or diesel generator. But the point is that they consume less fuel to create HP. Electric thrust is very efficient with tremendous torque. The Porsche even collects power on braking.

That being said the challenge is now to find less polluting ways to build batteries, which seriously undermine the environmental impact of hybrids. This is not far off.

I am not a greenly, as my posting history will show, but I will celebrate technological achievement, when it creates less pollution (I don't consider CO2 pollution BTW) and especially when it represents an evolutionary step. A simple internal combustion engine is very inefficient.

I have a good friend and I recently had reasons to be riding in his Prius quite a bit as he was shopping for some equipment which we both like. It's almost eerie in that when it takes off no engine starts and there's almost no sound.

However, the electric motor must not be all that powerful because any time he tried to really accelerate or even just get up to highway speed the engine kicked in seamlessly.

He isn't a greenie either. He just likes technology. I don't like technology enough to drive that motorized roller skate. It was interesting though.

[canuckamuck]

"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

What kind of replacement energy are people using to charge these electric/hybrid cars? Coal fired power plants? Nuclear where they still really don't know what to do with the spent waste which will remain highly radioactive for the next gazillion years? Dam rivers and kill the fish?

Where is this energy which runs these cars which has no environmental impact?

These cars mostly produce their own current which is provided by either a gasoline or diesel generator. But the point is that they consume less fuel to create HP. Electric thrust is very efficient with tremendous torque. The Porsche even collects power on braking.

That being said the challenge is now to find less polluting ways to build batteries, which seriously undermine the environmental impact of hybrids. This is not far off.

I am not a greenly, as my posting history will show, but I will celebrate technological achievement, when it creates less pollution (I don't consider CO2 pollution BTW) and especially when it represents an evolutionary step. A simple internal combustion engine is very inefficient.

I have a good friend and I recently had reasons to be riding in his Prius quite a bit as he was shopping for some equipment which we both like. It's almost eerie in that when it takes off no engine starts and there's almost no sound.

However, the electric motor must not be all that powerful because any time he tried to really accelerate or even just get up to highway speed the engine kicked in seamlessly.

He isn't a greenie either. He just likes technology. I don't like technology enough to drive that motorized roller skate. It was interesting though.

Yeah well the Prius is a turd. There are magnificent hybrids out there.

[samran]

"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

What kind of replacement energy are people using to charge these electric/hybrid cars? Coal fired power plants? Nuclear where they still really don't know what to do with the spent waste which will remain highly radioactive for the next gazillion years? Dam rivers and kill the fish?

Where is this energy which runs these cars which has no environmental impact?

These cars mostly produce their own current which is provided by either a gasoline or diesel generator. But the point is that they consume less fuel to create HP. Electric thrust is very efficient with tremendous torque. The Porsche even collects power on braking.

That being said the challenge is now to find less polluting ways to build batteries, which seriously undermine the environmental impact of hybrids. This is not far off.

I am not a greenly, as my posting history will show, but I will celebrate technological achievement, when it creates less pollution (I don't consider CO2 pollution BTW) and especially when it represents an evolutionary step. A simple internal combustion engine is very inefficient.

I have a good friend and I recently had reasons to be riding in his Prius quite a bit as he was shopping for some equipment which we both like. It's almost eerie in that when it takes off no engine starts and there's almost no sound.

However, the electric motor must not be all that powerful because any time he tried to really accelerate or even just get up to highway speed the engine kicked in seamlessly.

He isn't a greenie either. He just likes technology. I don't like technology enough to drive that motorized roller skate. It was interesting though.

But that is what it will come down to isn't it? Where the money is. While I believe in the climate scientists to say climate change is true, getting into a debate about it is kind of pointless in many ways. The smart money is on solar and batteries. I don't think those investors particularly care about the science of climate debate either, except when it goes on their CSR documentation.

Their investments in this area has already started to play havoc with electricity demand in many countries actually declining, as rooftop solar, battery storage and more efficient house hold appliances is making traditional coal fired power plants redundant and the massive investments have been wasted on poles and wires to meet a forecast peak demand which never eventuated given the popularity of rooftop solar. All ironic too as it isn't the subsidies that solar panels get which has ultimately led to this, but the massive capex in those actual poles and wires which pushed electricity prices sky high and made renewable alternatives attractive.

It will be the same with cars. It won't be the greenies who make the Prius popular, but the steady march of oil prices making alternatives more attractive.

And that has always been he key thing for me. While the greenies were out protesting, it was always going to be market forces which were going to win it for them. And, as a true 'liberal', you can always bet on market forces to do the job for you. As a former Australian PM used to say: in the horse race of life always bet on the one called 'self interest', at least you know he's trying.

[Ulysses G.]

Most of the rest of the world, including, crucially, China, are moving towards implementing existing solutions and finding better solutions as well as working on ways to mitigate the damage already done and about to befall us.

Oh really now?

While President Obama challenged China at the United Nations to follow the U.S. lead in pushing for drastic reductions in national carbon emissions to save the planet from “climate change,” it appears that China has dramatically different ideas. As in: NO.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/09/24/climate-change-china-rebuts-obama/?intcmp=latestnews

[samran]

Most of the rest of the world, including, crucially, China, are moving towards implementing existing solutions and finding better solutions as well as working on ways to mitigate the damage already done and about to befall us.

Oh really now?

While President Obama challenged China at the United Nations to follow the U.S. lead in pushing for drastic reductions in national carbon emissions to save the planet from “climate change,” it appears that China has dramatically different ideas. As in: NO.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/09/24/climate-change-china-rebuts-obama/?intcmp=latestnews

Don't be fooled.

The won't respond to international bullying lest they lose face.

But they are going ahead anyway. They are doing their darndest to corner the solar PV market.

They've just banned the import (and i think use) of lower CV coal.

Not for any love of the greenies, but again cause of their own self interest (can't breath their own air, and to dominate the market in the next wave of power production).

[PiPiFFS]

So piddling little and totally insignificant humans think that they simply need to introduce lots of taxes, against the might of mother nature and the temperature of the world is suddenly going to reduce <deleted> ?

This scam has nothing to do with saving the planet but all about tax and control and nothing more.

First we had good old Al telling us that man made co2 was responsible for global warming and the more co2 the quicker the world was going to fry.

Then someone pointed out that the world wasn't actually warming so they quickly changed it all to Climate Change. That way no matter what the weather did it could all be put down to man made co2.

The trouble is the world stopped warming around 17 years ago but eh co2 levels have reached all time highs <deleted> ?

How is this possible when we have been told that he more co2 the hotter the world gets ?

Even when the whole basis of their so called science is shown to be wrong they still persist.

It has gone past any form of science now and is now pseudo religious, separated into believers and nonbelievers and anyone disagreeing called a heretic.

They don't find anything wrong or hypocritical of having a spokesman like DiCaprio who has several houses, flies around in a private jet and rents one of the biggest yachts for holidays telling the little people to stop driving, use less power and fuel etc.

I'm all for stopping pollution. But co2 isn't a pollutant it is a small and minor greenhouse gas that has been turned into a pollutant for political ends

[samran]

Love watching the denialalistas get angry amongst themselves.

Denialista A: grrrr

B: no, Grrrr

A: no GRRR

B: No GRRR!

A: NO!! GRRRRR!!!

C: Al Gore!

A&B: GRRRR!!!!! ( heads explode)

[Thakkar]

Most of the rest of the world, including, crucially, China, are moving towards implementing existing solutions and finding better solutions as well as working on ways to mitigate the damage already done and about to befall us.

Oh really now?

While President Obama challenged China at the United Nations to follow the U.S. lead in pushing for drastic reductions in national carbon emissions to save the planet from climate change, it appears that China has dramatically different ideas. As in: NO.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/09/24/climate-change-china-rebuts-obama/?intcmp=latestnews

Fox News is spinning it as an emphatic "Nyet!" From China when in fact what China is demanding is a perfectly reasonable negotiating stance to take given the historical record.

Carbon remains in the atmosphere for over a hundred years. Carbon emitted in 1900 is still up there, affecting our climate today. Cumulative emissions from 1870 to 2013 total 1,430 gigatons for the world, including 161 gigatons from China, 370 from the U.S., 328 from the European Union, and 44 from India.

(http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/09/140921-climate-change-carbon-budget-un-summit-environment-science/)

Today's Americans are enjoying the economic benefits accrued from all those emissions. It's only fair that they share a greater proportion of the cost of fixing the problem.

Regardless of this negotiating stance, China is, as Samran rightly points out, taking concerted action to reduce emissions. This is because they have accepted the science and realize that Chinese coastal cities face an existential threat. The air in many major cities has become unbreathable on far too many days of the year. Domestic food production, which is a security issue for the ruling Communist Party is facing critical decline and it has been determined that excessive CO2 in the atmosphere is one of the causes.

While taking a tough negotiating stance to wring maximum concessions from the West (a capitalist maneuver the Right wing Fox News should understand!) China is forging ahead on renewables: Table-China's renewable energy targets for 2015 and 2020 (www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/14/china-power-targets-idAFL4E8JD2WV20120814)

Note that the 2020 target more than doubles renewable energy production from 2015 in all sectors. And the 2015 target, which was set in 2010, is on course to be achieved early.

But, as I've said before, whatever your stance on climate change, sustainable development is a good in itself because it preserves more of our natural environment for the benefit of future generations.

T

[chuckd]

Love watching the denialalistas get angry amongst themselves.

Denialista A: grrrr

B: no, Grrrr

A: no GRRR

B: No GRRR!

A: NO!! GRRRRR!!!

C: Al Gore!

A&B: GRRRR!!!!! ( heads explode)

One of your more adult posts. Must have taken you hours to work this one out.