More voices from the middle - climate change edition

[dannyb278]

Thanks for the added info. I appreciate your perspective but it definitely doesn’t align with mine - primarily:

A. Extremely local food production isn’t so great for those areas with 4 seasons (I actually like fresh fruits and veggies in my diet in February).
B. Local food production tends to have lower productivity for most crops which means per calorie produced it uses more water and generates more CO2.
C. I reject that public ownership of “means of production” works at anything beyond niche/micro-scale. History has many many examples of this not working.

VG, I'm from Minnesota too. I've more than considered the 4 seasons, since, like you, I've lived through them for almost 40 years. Notice that part where i mentioned ever improving growing technology? We'll get to a point where we can grow a bunch of our fresh veggies indoors in February, especially when backed by solar or wind generated power. Now, even with the best technology, i might not be able to have a fresh banana whenever i want. I'm okay with that if it means living on a sustainable planet.

And for the record when i say community managed, i mean local production. Me thinks you are mistaking what i was saying for advocating for pure socialism, that wasnt my intent.

 

[BrentD]

Most agencies I know of that fund these studies are after a desired result so they can promote their vision of climate control. I want to hear the truth about it not what the right or left say, but with really hard nonpartisan scientific studies.

What agencies are those? Name them, please.

There is a literal ton of such studies if you really want to dive into it. Perhaps those agencies you allude to already have done that and concluded that anthropogenic climate change is a real thing? What you see as bias might just be intelligent people who have done their homework drawn their conclusions and are now proceeding to the next step - what can be done about it or what are the consequences of it.

After all, then National Geographic does not offer grants in search of Flat Earth.

Anyway, what agencies?

 

[SAJ-99]

I think more scientific study needs to be done by experts who do not address it with an agenda in mind but go after the truth.

I am going to bet that you are not going to like the solutions, but let's see...
Here is a company that has a potential solution https://carbonengineering.com. There are others, but this co extracts CO2 from the air and turns it into fuel. You can see why current investors include Occidental, BHP, and Chevron as well as the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Strange bed-fellows to say the least. Now to the thought experiment. Please suspend any doubts and say that this solution - extracting CO2 from the air and turning it into fuel - is scaleable across the globe and could at least pause if not reverse the rise in CO2 ("Save the Planet" if you want to be on that side of the argument). What would you pay for a gallon of that fuel? Would it need to equal the current price of gasoline, say $2.60, or $3, or $4, or is $6 reasonable if it does "Save the Planet"? Now what do you think the rest of the country would be willing to pay?

 

[BrentD]

SA-J ,

I did not say that.

 

[WyoDoug]

What agencies are those? Name them, please.

There is a literal ton of such studies if you really want to dive into it. Perhaps those agencies you allude to already have done that and concluded that anthropogenic climate change is a real thing? What you see as bias might just be intelligent people who have done their homework drawn their conclusions and are now proceeding to the next step - what can be done about it or what are the consequences of it.

After all, then National Geographic does not offer grants in search of Flat Earth.

Anyway, what agencies?

Lets do this. Name studies done by bipartisan groups that were done without an agenda. Meaning political interests are not involved in the study. Rather than attack someone else's view, lets see what you can do to present your own. That's how the world revolves. Present your own evidence to support your own view.

 

[SAJ-99]

SA-J ,

I did not say that.

Sorry, that was weird. I hit quote on WyoDoug and it assigned it to you. Not sure if I messed that up or the system. My apologies.

 

[SAJ-99]

well written. A bit more sensationalist, but i also really like this one. It makes me think about a future that combines advanced growing technology with a more old time reality of extremely local food production.

For instance, i live in a community of 20,000. Rather than truck cans of tomato's in to the local grocery store, we have more than enough agricultural land in the area to grow all the food necessary for the community, but that only works if the means of production are managed by the community itself.

What if We Stopped Pretending the Climate Apocalypse Can Be Stopped?

The climate apocalypse is coming. To prepare for it, we need to admit that we can’t prevent it.

www.newyorker.com

We sort of suspend the principles of economics in this case- namely that an economic system evolves in an efficient way where things are done where they are cheapest. If we want to grow things locally, then for some period of time the plumber has to stop plumbing, the teacher stops teaching, the banker stops banking, etc. Even if the tomatoes are sold at the same price, the price of everything else in town goes up because people are no longer doing what they are best at. They are tending tomatoes.

 

[dannyb278]

We sort of suspend the principles of economics in this case- namely that an economic system evolves in an efficient way where things are done where they are cheapest. If we want to grow things locally, then for some period of time the plumber has to stop plumbing, the teacher stops teaching, the banker stops banking, etc. Even if the tomatoes are sold at the same price, the price of everything else in town goes up because people are no longer doing what they are best at. They are tending tomatoes.

i see your point, but i also dont think that local production of tomatoes means a sudden drop in the plumber pool. pretty sure we need more jobs, not less. its not 1:1. i would rather support my local tomato tending economy rather than support one in California. Job creation my friend, not job replacement.

 

[BigHornRam]

Critical analysis of this up and coming green building technology, @VikingsGuy

Washington State Is Thinning Out Forests To Reduce Wildfire Risk

The state of Washington is moving to aggressively thin forests to reduce the worsening wildfire risk. The initiative signals a rare truce between loggers and environmentalists.

www.npr.org

https://vaagentimbers.com/?gclid=Cj0KCQiAyKrxBRDHARIsAKCzn8zlPSzExdPCFLP_8TEMascvA-W_cXCJw8Dy_ZmjbDCMJHnI-OePNiwaAq5iEALw_wcB

 

[SAJ-99]

i see your point, but i also dont think that local production of tomatoes means a sudden drop in the plumber pool. pretty sure we need more jobs, not less. its not 1:1. i would rather support my local tomato tending economy rather than support one in California. Job creation my friend, not job replacement.

No, just moving jobs from CA to your local community. Sounds great at face value, but there is a cost. Example: There is a reason textiles(clothes) are largely made in China and other emerging market countries. The cost of labor is lower which makes the product cheaper, even after putting them on a boat and shipping them back to the US (actually, we ship the raw cotton to China where they turn it into socks/shirts/etc and then they ship it back). So how much are you willing to pay for your tomatoes or whatever else you think it would be great to make locally? That is mostly where we are with climate change. We have known causes and solutions, but the question is how much people want to pay to implement them. I pointed out in the Miami example, what people get told is "We have a solution with no cost." If solar and wind was cheaper and more efficient than coal and nat gas plants, people wouldn't care and every new power production facility would be wind or solar. We are getting close to that point.

 

[Irrelevant]

A. Extremely local food production isn’t so great for those areas with 4 seasons (I actually like fresh fruits and veggies in my diet in February).

FYI, it was single digits last week, we've had snow on the ground since mid Dec, and I'm still digging fresh carrots. In some cases you can have your cake and eat it too.

 

[lifeisgoodsteve]

Well, as someone who's pretty new here and been observing the Sportsmans and Public Land forums for a little while, it's refreshing to find anywhere there's a middle ground of civility to have real discussions, listen, share and learn, sometimes finding a higher solution thanks to the effort of trying to understand someone else and sometimes agreeing to disagree.

A very wise man once shared with me a simple question he always asks himself: "Will what I say or do help this person or situation?"

If the other person has no interest in being open to listen and consider, even if not agreeing, then he just let's it go. Why fight when it will just make people feel the need to build the walls around their position even higher. It seems like we'd all get a lot farther if we resist the urge to feed into the tribal warfare of both extremes and support a healthy middle ground where healthy conversations can happen and support for real solutions can be generated.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Lets do this. Name studies done by bipartisan groups that were done without an agenda. Meaning political interests are not involved in the study. Rather than attack someone else's view, lets see what you can do to present your own. That's how the world revolves. Present your own evidence to support your own view.

I agree we have to be attentive to agendas and biases to make sure they don’t skew the outcomes - but let’s be very clear, there is no such thing as an unbiased scientific study. And very few don’t have money at stake. Some random university professor is staking his chance at tenure and his reputation with his peers when he does his research - data that supports the faculty’s preferences gets published, data that doesn’t seems to not make it to the publisher. A majority of university research papers can never be reproduced by independent testing. Human error and bias is everywhere. I just prefer to accept it as the human condition and take it into account when I read things rather than to pretend I will ever find the “pure of heart”.

 

[VikingsGuy]

FYI, it was single digits last week, we've had snow on the ground since mid Dec, and I'm still digging fresh carrots. In some cases you can have your cake and eat it too.

More importantly, I object to carrot cake as a dessert concept. NO veggies in my desserts please.

 

[BigHornRam]

FYI, it was single digits last week, we've had snow on the ground since mid Dec, and I'm still digging fresh carrots. In some cases you can have your cake and eat it too.

Can be done if you put some effort into it.

 

[BrentD]

I agree we have to be attentive to agendas and biases to make sure they don’t skew the outcomes - but let’s be very clear, there is no such thing as an unbiased scientific study. And very few don’t have money at stake. Some random university professor is staking His chance at tenure and his reputation with his peers when he does his research - data that supports the faculty’s preferences gets published, data that doesn’t seems to not make it to the publisher. A majority of university research papers can never be reproduced by independent testing. Human error and bias is everywhere. I just prefer to accept it as the human condition and take it into account when I read things rather than to pretend I will ever find the “pure of heart”.

I disagree VG. I disagree strongly.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

If solar and wind was cheaper and more efficient than coal and nat gas plants, people wouldn't care and every new power production facility would be wind or solar. We are getting close to that point.

I'm skeptical if we are being quite honest. Gas (natural gas not gasoline) is at $1.87, we have been at historic lows for the last couple of years. With the protests of Jordan Cove and no further plans at exporting LNG from our west coast China has partner with Russia to supply much of their gas. Essentially, that $1.87 could go a lot lower... and we have no shortage of reserves. Solar and Wind is heavily subsidence, it's essentially government putting their finger on the scale.

This isn't to say that we shouldn't be doing this kind of development, it's just inaccurate to say it's cheaper... perhaps if you factor in long term costs associated with climate change...

As BHP, Oxy, and Chevron. Hard to say if it's just green washing or not. Given that it's those specific companies... I'm leaning on green washing, or hedging against cap and trade, I just have a hard time thinking Vicki gives a chit about renewables after her $38 Billion dollar purchase of Anadarko.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I disagree VG. I disagree strongly.

I am interested, can you elaborate?

 

[SAJ-99]

I'm skeptical if we are being quite honest. Gas (natural gas not gasoline) is at $1.87, we have been at historic lows for the last couple of years. With the protests of Jordan Cove and no further plans at exporting LNG from our west coast China has partner with Russia to supply much of their gas. Essentially, that $1.87 could go a lot lower... and we have no shortage of reserves. Solar and Wind is heavily subsidence, it's essentially government putting their finger on the scale.

This isn't to say that we shouldn't be doing this kind of development, it's just inaccurate to say it's cheaper... perhaps if you factor in long term costs associated with climate change...

As BHP, Oxy, and Chevron. Hard to say if it's just green washing or not. Given that it's those specific companies... I'm leaning on green washing, or hedging against cap and trade, I just have a hard time thinking Vicki gives a chit about renewables after her $38 Billion dollar purchase of Anadarko.

Skepticism is healthy. I really don't worry about the growth in LNG because Europe wants to become less dependent on Russian gas. The NIBY stuff is always an issue.
Solar and wind is subsidized, but so is oil and utilities. I never said renewables were cheaper, but they are getting close, even without subsidies. I figure it is just a matter of time. It is really hard to figure out what the true cost of anything is. You can always look at the tax bill the big oil companies pay versus what they should pay and wonder what you get for that bill. A lot of the argument from oil and electric companies is now "the wind doesn't alway blow and the sun doesn't always shine". You know from the structure of that argument that pure production costs are getting close to parity.

Agree. I am very suspect on their participation in some of these ventures. Oil companies have never proven to be all that innovative. In its infancy the entire industry was only saved by the internal combustion engine and they didn't invent that. Over the last 50yrs I suspect they have spent more on lobbying than R&D. But in this case, if the technology works at scale, it won't take long for people to ask why they are subsidizing oil companies to take carbon out of the ground, car companies and utilities that put it in the air, and carbon capture technology to take it out of the air (and put it back in the ground or create fuel).

 

[BigHornRam]

Don't think oil and gas is going away any time soon.

Non-Fuel Products of Oil and Gas

www.americangeosciences.org