Author
Topic: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy
(Read 523149 times)

Cincydawg · « **Reply #4788 on:** May 05, 2021, 08:44:41 AM »

Has anyone found something like the crude outline of a notion of a proposed "plan" anywhere? I'm still looking.

Maybe we just throw money at it and hope some useful good happens?

Probably.

MaximumSam · « **Reply #4789 on:** May 05, 2021, 09:48:16 AM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on May 05, 2021, 08:44:41 AM

Has anyone found something like the crude outline of a notion of a proposed "plan" anywhere? I'm still looking.

Maybe we just throw money at it and hope some useful good happens?

Probably.

I think the plan is to keep asking the same question until the earth casts itself into the sun

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #4790 on:** May 05, 2021, 09:51:53 AM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on May 05, 2021, 08:44:41 AM

Has anyone found something like the crude outline of a notion of a proposed "plan" anywhere? I'm still looking.

Maybe we just throw money at it and hope some useful good happens?

Probably.

What if you stop asking for a cohesive national plan and start looking at individual elements? After all, if you have a single plan then every political interest that is negatively impacted by any individual element will band together and kill it. But if you implement things as individual elements, you can chip away at the carbon economy without goring everyone's ox at once.

I can see several elements, some that exist, some that are proposed, that could help reduce CO2 emissions:

Rising CAFE standards for auto fleets. (already in place)
Subsidies for EVs. (already in place)
Subsidies for solar. (already in place)
Carbon tax. (not in place)
Forced movement away from coal [somehow]. (not in place)
Subsidies to improve energy efficiency of existing homestock [i.e. cash for caulkers]. (not in place because it was proposed too quickly after the failure that was cash for clunkers--but perhaps could be revived)
Policies to increase density of cities and improve transit. (hodgepodge across various states/locales)
Having state vehicle registration fees be correlated to the curb weight of a vehicle rather than flat or tied to the vehicle's market value. (pipe dream I had when I used to ride a motorcycle, but heavier vehicles cause more road damage AND typically have higher emissions, so it's a double whammy)

I'm sure I could go on. Perhaps nobody has put them all together, wrapped a pretty bow describing the aggregate emissions drop which will result [and the gigantic price tag it will cost] on it, and then put a giant target on their back to be shot at over it. That's what you're calling a "plan".

However I think we can get farther, faster, if we break it up into disparate elements and push those elements individually.

847badgerfan · « **Reply #4791 on:** May 05, 2021, 09:54:20 AM »

Quote from: betarhoalphadelta on May 05, 2021, 09:51:53 AM

What if you stop asking for a cohesive national plan and start looking at individual elements? After all, if you have a single plan then every political interest that is negatively impacted by any individual element will band together and kill it. But if you implement things as individual elements, you can chip away at the carbon economy without goring everyone's ox at once.

I can see several elements, some that exist, some that are proposed, that could help reduce CO2 emissions:

Rising CAFE standards for auto fleets. (already in place)
Subsidies for EVs. (already in place)
Subsidies for solar. (already in place)
Carbon tax. (not in place)
Forced movement away from coal [somehow]. (not in place)
Subsidies to improve energy efficiency of existing homestock [i.e. cash for caulkers]. (not in place because it was proposed too quickly after the failure that was cash for clunkers--but perhaps could be revived)
Policies to increase density of cities and improve transit. (hodgepodge across various states/locales)
Having state vehicle registration fees be correlated to the curb weight of a vehicle rather than flat or tied to the vehicle's market value. (pipe dream I had when I used to ride a motorcycle, but heavier vehicles cause more road damage AND typically have higher emissions, so it's a double whammy)

I'm sure I could go on. Perhaps nobody has put them all together, wrapped a pretty bow describing the aggregate emissions drop which will result [and the gigantic price tag it will cost] on it, and then put a giant target on their back to be shot at over it. That's what you're calling a "plan".

However I think we can get farther, faster, if we break it up into disparate elements and push those elements individually.

Sounds like a plan.

longhorn320 · « **Reply #4792 on:** May 05, 2021, 10:55:27 AM »

why do you guys just ignore my point that nothing the US does by itself will do nothing but just cost the US taxpayers money

The US is only 15% of the worlds carbon emissions and on top of that has reduced its carbon emissions already

the other 85% of the world will have to be brought into the carbon emission reduction arena or nothing the US does will make a difference

Wake me when China and India come out with a carbon emission reduction policy

Cincydawg · « **Reply #4793 on:** May 05, 2021, 11:20:25 AM »

I surmise everyone understands we have bits and pieces out there, we still have not addressed the KEY question, what do we get for the money?

Cost:benefit. That would be part of any real "plan". All those bits and pieces, as I've shown, amount to diddley if the goal is to slow climate change significantly, diddley, an unmeasurable amount. Even if Europe does the same, it's an unmeasurably small benefit. Even if China gets on board and stops building coal plants, it's a small impact on a large problem.

Now, maybe the effort it worth it, some small benefit, perhaps, but I'd like to see the calculations. All the one's I've seen show benefits that are simply too small to matter, at all, but curiously those are published by folks like Lonborg who have a dog in the fight, so I don't believe him.

But everything I can find clearly shows we can't do much, now, about the problem in any practical sense, rearrange some deck chairs into a more holistic pattern.

So, if we DO all the bits and pieces, what do the models suggest will be the benefit? Answer? Very very little.

847badgerfan · « **Reply #4794 on:** May 05, 2021, 11:45:25 AM »

Quote from: longhorn320 on May 05, 2021, 10:55:27 AM

why do you guys just ignore my point that nothing the US does by itself will do nothing but just cost the US taxpayers money

The US is only 15% of the worlds carbon emissions and on top of that has reduced its carbon emissions already

the other 85% of the world will have to be brought into the carbon emission reduction arena or nothing the US does will make a difference

Wake me when China and India come out with a carbon emission reduction policy

I don't ignore this. Without China and India on board, all of this talk is pointless.

Of course, China would love for the USA (to print more money) to invest trillions of dollars (not backed by gold). That will speed up the end game for them, to become the World's bank.

MaximumSam · « **Reply #4795 on:** May 05, 2021, 11:56:50 AM »

Definitely, a multinational approach is essential. But the challenges presented by the politics of this country are almost insurmountable, and that's without using any other country as a scapegoat

Cincydawg · « **Reply #4796 on:** May 05, 2021, 11:59:18 AM »

The issue is not political, it's technical.

MaximumSam · « **Reply #4797 on:** May 05, 2021, 12:06:32 PM »

The issues are political, technical, and otherwise

Cincydawg · « **Reply #4798 on:** May 05, 2021, 12:08:26 PM »

Even if we had complete political agreement about doing "something", my core technical point remains obvious and unchallenged.

MaximumSam · « **Reply #4799 on:** May 05, 2021, 12:10:51 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on May 05, 2021, 12:08:26 PM

Even if we had complete political agreement about doing "something", my core technical point remains obvious and unchallenged.

Lol, no it doesn't.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #4800 on:** May 05, 2021, 12:17:26 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on May 05, 2021, 11:20:25 AM

I surmise everyone understands we have bits and pieces out there, we still have not addressed the KEY question, what do we get for the money?

Cost:benefit. That would be part of any real "plan". All those bits and pieces, as I've shown, amount to diddley if the goal is to slow climate change significantly, diddley, an unmeasurable amount. Even if Europe does the same, it's an unmeasurably small benefit. Even if China gets on board and stops building coal plants, it's a small impact on a large problem.

Now, maybe the effort it worth it, some small benefit, perhaps, but I'd like to see the calculations. All the one's I've seen show benefits that are simply too small to matter, at all, but curiously those are published by folks like Lonborg who have a dog in the fight, so I don't believe him.

But everything I can find clearly shows we can't do much, now, about the problem in any practical sense, rearrange some deck chairs into a more holistic pattern.

So, if we DO all the bits and pieces, what do the models suggest will be the benefit? Answer? Very very little.

Hey... Maybe you're right. Maybe you're not. I don't know.

I was trying to pick things that may have other ancillary benefits.

Anything related to energy efficiency IMHO is a net gain. Tighter CAFE standards will reduce CO2, but will also reduce other automotive pollution too. That's a good thing. Encouraging solar, wind, and nuclear [with subsidies as necessary] moves our entire energy grid to a less-impactful energy source on our environment. Improving existing housing stock efficiency reduces energy demand. Increased urbanization and density has positive network effects on the economy.

And a carbon tax just makes sense--gotta tax something, so why not pick carbon instead of discouraging something we want?

Do the calculations bear out that it will solve all negative effects of climate change? Maybe not. But that doesn't mean that these bits and pieces aren't good first steps, right?

Cincydawg · « **Reply #4801 on:** May 05, 2021, 12:18:03 PM »

I've laid the challenges out pretty clearly I think, without nuclear, we have no chance at all. The math is very clear.

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

MaximumSam

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

847badgerfan

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

longhorn320

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

847badgerfan

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

MaximumSam

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

MaximumSam

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

MaximumSam

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment