Major Climate Change Rules the Trump Administration Is Reversing

[MattK]

The answer isn't in politics and shouldn't be left to politics. I did read the link...didn't you see my response of particulate vs. CO2 gas differences.

You must not have read the report from columbia university that I posted as volcanoes are explained...and gives a reason why volcanoes only explain short term changes.

Didn't see your answer to anything but whether man has an effect. Of the greenhouse gases, which do you believe stays in the atmosphere the longest? What is the greenhouse gas that has changed the most in abundance? Can you argue against the science that shows a direct correlation between carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and the temperature change?

 

[BigHornRam]

Does a warming planet release more CO2 or does CO2 warm the planet.?

If it shouldn't be left to politics Matt, how do you propose we get the two biggest emitters of fossil fuel produced CO2, China, and India, to stop emitting CO2? How do we pay for this? What are the energy sources that will replace fossil fuels? Do these replacements have unintended consequences of their own?

 

[BigHornRam]

Is the New Green Deal an actual climate change solution? Or a crazy social experiment?

 

[Ben Sellers]

At the end of the day, the rapidly expanding population of the world is a much greater risk to the world than CO2 emissions.

 

[MattK]

Is the New Green Deal an actual climate change solution? Or a crazy social experiment?

I'm not sure what it is...as it has no chance of going anywhere, it's a pipe dream. Technology, science, innovation and desire can have a major effect...simple things can have a profound effect...listen to the podcast, it gives a few things to help mitigate the problem. There are economists that believe (with projections) that making changes and being wrong is still quite cost effective for the future...leaving it up to politics alone ensures nothing will happen as the golden rule says that those who have the gold make the rules...in this case, the money is still oil and gas. As for other countries...many are working within the confines of the Paris accord which isn't perfect but is a start, except us. The real question is why would the US not want to be an agent of change? The only real answer (which prevails the most) is absolute greed. So are you agreeing man made co2 is the problem...you just don't want to change?

 

[BigHornRam]

absolute greed.

There it is.

 

[Sytes]

Interesting opinion piece...

I would not vote for him as Senator (Steve Daines holds my vote) though from a National standpoint... there is strategy behind Bullock as Senator... Yes, this relates to the opinion piece discussed in the article specifically about "climate change"...

Opinion | ‘Steve Bullock Is the Most Important Person on the Planet’ (Published 2019)

Hear me out.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Trial153]

He would be crazy to give up the governorship to be a freshman senator.

 

[MattK]

He would be crazy to give up the governorship to be a freshman senator.

He is done as Governor...we have term limits.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

How do we pay for this? What are the energy sources that will replace fossil fuels? Do these replacements have unintended consequences of their own?

I wish deniers would drop the climate change "debate" and focus on this question. There is enough science and popular acceptance that you aren't going to get anywhere arguing the fact, regardless of where the truth lies, but there are a lot of sound measured arguments around limitations of replacement fuels, economic justice, unintended environmental consequences etc.

 

[Eric Albus]

Climate change has become a religion for the left. Fear mongering children and loonies into thinking the earth will last 12 years...wait a year or more has passed, what do we have left 9 or 10? So let us put our money where our mouths are, I will leave my estate to anyone in 12 years if the world does come to an end due to "climate change". Anyone who believes the world is ending on account of "climate change" leave their estate to me, inheritable in 15 years, heck I'll even go 20, any takers?? I'd bet not.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Climate change has become a religion for the left. Fear mongering children and loonies into thinking the earth will last 12 years...wait a year or more has passed, what do we have left 9 or 10? So let us put our money where our mouths are, I will leave my estate to anyone in 12 years if the world does come to an end due to "climate change". Anyone who believes the world is ending on account of "climate change" leave their estate to me, inheritable in 15 years, heck I'll even go 20, any takers?? I'd bet not.

So leaving the debate aside, what is the final argument that you are trying to make? Say you are correct there is no climate change, it's all a fabrication, where does that leave you in terms of policy.

Personally, I want clean air/water and affordable energy. That means responsible, regulated development.

 

[MattK]

So leaving the debate aside, what is the final argument that you are trying to make? Say you are correct there is no climate change, it's all a fabrication, where does that leave you in terms of policy.

Personally, I want clean air/water and affordable energy. That means responsible, regulated development.

I believe what you are getting at (and what many economists believe as well) is that betting against "climate change" is a fools bet. Let's say people are wrong and "climate change" is as bad as they say...they lose and everyone else loses as well (and creating a fix would be very costly if possible at all after climate change takes effect). Let's say they are right (no "climate change") and do nothing...you will still have clean up at the end (maybe not personally but their kid's kids) it just doesn't cause "climate change" but still causes pollution needing to be cleaned up eventually. Let's say they are right (no climate change) and "waste" money on alternative energy sources. The end result is cleaner air, cleaner water, less pollution and less long term effects plus better more advanced technology and multiple energy sources (helping create more energy independence). That's why economists don't see a down side in believing in climate change. (Economists see a shift in job market but not a net loss in jobs based on a different energy source). Also, there are a lot of non economic means to mitigate climate change as well. Over-all, whether you believe in "climate change" or not, mitigating climate change could be a plus plus for anyone...taking religion out of it.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I believe what you are getting at (and what many economists believe as well) is that betting against "climate change" is a fools bet. Let's say people are wrong and "climate change" is as bad as they say...they lose and everyone else loses as well (and creating a fix would be very costly if possible at all after climate change takes effect). Let's say they are right (no "climate change") and do nothing...you will still have clean up at the end (maybe not personally but their kid's kids) it just doesn't cause "climate change" but still causes pollution needing to be cleaned up eventually. Let's say they are right (no climate change) and "waste" money on alternative energy sources. The end result is cleaner air, cleaner water, less pollution and less long term effects plus better more advanced technology and multiple energy sources (helping create more energy independence). That's why economists don't see a down side in believing in climate change. (Economists see a shift in job market but not a net loss in jobs based on a different energy source). Also, there are a lot of non economic means to mitigate climate change as well. Over-all, whether you believe in "climate change" or not, mitigating climate change could be a plus plus for anyone...taking religion out of it.

Indeed. I work in Oil and Gas, I have the conversation about climate quite often. The most effective arguments I've heard and used for continued development having nothing to do with whether or not anthropogenic climate change is occurring.

You can debate "religion" till the cows come home, a more interesting conversation is what should our concrete goals be for the next decade, and what are the best methods for achieving those goals. Lots of politics preach fixing "everything" tomorrow, I prefer the ones who talk about making it incrementally better. I rather vote for someone who thinks they have a solution that makes a problem 5% better not 100% better, obviously the guy preaching 100% is full of crap.

 

[PrairieHunter]

What are the energy sources that will replace fossil fuels? Do these replacements have unintended consequences of their own?

Biomass. Look at Europe, they are about 20 years ahead right now. Between wind, solar, and biomass we could provide as much power as we need. The unintended consequence would be wood utilization on a massive scale, helping to solve problems like pine beetle epidemic, EAB, etc... Probably even less forest fires if foresters could manage fuels more effectively and there were markets for the timber.

Video on some of the work I do with global warming, wood utilization, and livestock.

 

[BigHornRam]

Want proof that there is a religious aspect to climate change?

Do you blast the A/C? Throw out half your lunch? Tell us where you fall short in preventing climate change

Where do you fall short in preventing climate change? Do you blast the A/C? Throw out half your lunch? Grill a steak every week? Share your anonymous confession with NBC News.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[BigHornRam]

Biomass. Look at Europe, they are about 20 years ahead right now. Between wind, solar, and biomass we could provide as much power as we need. The unintended consequence would be wood utilization on a massive scale, helping to solve problems like pine beetle epidemic, EAB, etc... Probably even less forest fires if foresters could manage fuels more effectively and there were markets for the timber.

Video on some of the work I do with global warming, wood utilization, and livestock.

This torrefication plant in Oregon is getting ready to go into production and a lot of people will be watching it to see how it performs economic wise.

Construction underway for torrefaction plant

Progress is being made on construction of a $15.5 million torrefaction plant at the Malheur Lumber Co. mill in John Day. The plant could be running by September, Matt Krumenauer,

www.bluemountaineagle.com

Projects like this that have multiple purposes including forest health, reduction in wildfire intensity, reduction in slash burning, and energy production, have real potential to make a positive impact. Wouldn't it be a good idea to turn fuel reduction burn piles like this into kilowatts?

 

[BigHornRam]

Not everyone is on board with Europe's cutting edge biomass fuel plans however.

https://www.sunherald.com/news/local/counties/george-county/article230375599.html

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Biomass. Look at Europe, they are about 20 years ahead right now. Between wind, solar, and biomass we could provide as much power as we need. The unintended consequence would be wood utilization on a massive scale, helping to solve problems like pine beetle epidemic, EAB, etc... Probably even less forest fires if foresters could manage fuels more effectively and there were markets for the timber.

Video on some of the work I do with global warming, wood utilization, and livestock.

Wow that's an awesome video, with all the crazy back and forth rhetoric about climate change it's pretty refreshing to see hard working people working on pragmatic solutions.

My college had a biomass plant for our power generation, and I was always slightly skeptical from a CO2 perspective, mostly because of the far left rhetoric that was used to laud the station. Do you have any idea about what the difference in emissions of a NG plant versus biomass. I think certainly you have a lot of environmental impacts from OG dev, including but not limited to massive water use, but I'm curious how the two stack up against each other and then versus wind and solar.

A couple of the engineers at work and I did kinda a deep dive on wind a couple weeks ago, I posted some of what we came up with in the windmill thread, but basically after crunching the numbers we kinda realized how comically bad wind power is for the environment.

I'm curious what the arguments about biomass are and the best counters to them. I think strategically thinning forest, so they don't burn thus limiting CO2 that way is a great argument... but do the plants of some sort of scrubers? Is the CO2 released via energy production versus forest fire the same, or is it just considered net neutral because your "feed stock" is organic and assumed to be removing CO2 as it grows?

Seems like one argument for OG over bio is transportation costs both $$ and CO2, we pipe all of our gas and a lot of our liquids. That is a lot more efficient than having armies of trucks driving around full of wood, you could likely optimize, routes maybe get some electric trucks that are charged at the biomass plant itself... but at the end of the day you can't eliminate the trucks.

Scale also seems to be an issue, this list seems to suggest total commercial US biomass power is 6,374 MW, for perspective we calculated how much energy would be produced from all our hydrocarbons (assuming all were being used for power generation) and it was around 4,750 MW which is more energy than the largest nuclear station in the US, total nuclear being 100,000 MW.

 

[RockinU]

Want proof that there is a religious aspect to climate change?

Do you blast the A/C? Throw out half your lunch? Tell us where you fall short in preventing climate change

Where do you fall short in preventing climate change? Do you blast the A/C? Throw out half your lunch? Grill a steak every week? Share your anonymous confession with NBC News.

www.nbcnews.com

Looks more like a mass exercise in self-loathing...