No scientist ever said that and you're wrong about the timefrane
Some have made similar predictions.
According to you, what is the timeframe?
I am confident you can't find ANY significant scientist warning about global warming in hundreds of years. That is probably a product of your imagination.
1. I never said it's unsubsidized, just that it could survive on its own.
2. There is actually enough time to wait for a solution.
You said:
- Green initiatives should be able to survive unsubsidized
- Followed immediately by the example of Tesla
- Followed by an assertion that Tesla's are sold successfully because they are affordable (which is significantly due to subsidies and tax credits for Tesla and the buyers, the part that you omitted)
So no, technically you did not say they are unsubsidized...you just reach that conclusion (from the observant reader's perspective) logically, whether you said it explicitly or not, or whether you understand your own exposition here.
1.5'C of warming is already over and done with. There's another 1.5'C that is scarcely stoppable now that is coming. You do understand that momentum on a planetary scale is hard to stop once a process has begun, right?
Some have made similar predictions.
According to you, what is the timeframe?
According to ~180 countries and 95%+ of scientists, you mean. The timeframes are readily available. Ignorance does not entitle you to call a halt to worldwide efforts in order to make sure you are on board with the decisions.
My view is that we shouldn't subsidize any industry, as business failures are just as important for the market as business successes, even if they are unpleasant to the ears. In my view, neither industry is right nor wrong, and subsidizing one means a disadvantage in the market for the other.
So then, you obviously feel that the US interstate highway system was a mistake for the US economy...what a waste of time and money that was. It should have been done like the internet, privatized with monolithic companies driving the advances. That's why the US has faster and more reliable internet access than the rest of the world...oh, wait...there's a telegram coming in now...what? We're way behind and pay more?
No one said that either. It seems your entire thrust is based on hunches and made up stories.
Ever do any actual self-education?
It's actually not my hunch, but rather what an education taught me.
1. I never said it's unsubsidized, just that it could survive on its own.
2. There is actually enough time to wait for a solution.
You said:
- Green initiatives should be able to survive unsubsidized
- Followed immediately by the example of Tesla
- Followed by an assertion that Tesla's are sold successfully because they are affordable (which is significantly due to subsidies and tax credits for Tesla and the buyers, the part that you omitted)
So no, technically you did not say they are unsubsidized...you just reach that conclusion (from the observant reader's perspective) logically, whether you said it explicitly or not, or whether you understand your own exposition here.
1.5'C of warming is already over and done with. There's another 1.5'C that is scarcely stoppable now that is coming. You do understand that momentum on a planetary scale is hard to stop once a process has begun, right?
I never said it's affordable, I said it's a good car for its price.
No one said that either. It seems your entire thrust is based on hunches and made up stories.
Ever do any actual self-education?
It's actually not my hunch, but rather what an education taught me.
What kind?
Some have made similar predictions.
According to you, what is the timeframe?
According to ~180 countries and 95%+ of scientists, you mean. The timeframes are readily available. Ignorance does not entitle you to call a halt to worldwide efforts in order to make sure you are on board with the decisions.
Maybe not me, but what about the billions of people you want to force inefficiency on?
Some have made similar predictions.
According to you, what is the timeframe?
According to ~180 countries and 95%+ of scientists, you mean. The timeframes are readily available. Ignorance does not entitle you to call a halt to worldwide efforts in order to make sure you are on board with the decisions.
Maybe not me, but what about the billions of people you want to force inefficiency on?
The part about inefficiency is debatable, but I won’t delve into that. Survival is of the utmost importance, and for good reason, ones I hardly need to point out.
Some have made similar predictions.
According to you, what is the timeframe?
According to ~180 countries and 95%+ of scientists, you mean. The timeframes are readily available. Ignorance does not entitle you to call a halt to worldwide efforts in order to make sure you are on board with the decisions.
Maybe not me, but what about the billions of people you want to force inefficiency on?
How about the billions of people at risk of waiting "hundreds of years"?
And no I don't believe ANY education system taught you what you're saying here unless you were home schooled by unqualified people.
You’re claiming that the effects of climate change will not be felt until centuries have elapsed, that switching to green energy is a bad idea, and that subsidising companies that will be useful is bad. I know zombie companies are bad, but Tesla is nowhere close to being one.
No one said that either. It seems your entire thrust is based on hunches and made up stories.
Ever do any actual self-education?
It's actually not my hunch, but rather what an education taught me.
What kind?
He should demand a refund.
No one said that either. It seems your entire thrust is based on hunches and made up stories.
Ever do any actual self-education?
It's actually not my hunch, but rather what an education taught me.
What kind?
He should demand a refund.
Probably. Then again, he probably wouldn’t get one.
I'm curious as to what you mean by "radical solution". It is my opinion that many climate activists aren't wrong when it comes to the fact of whether climate change or global warming exists, which I believe they do. Problems begin with their solutions, which are almost always radical. These radical solutions may mean a curbing of freedom or cratering the global economy. These are not only unrealistic but also morally wrong. I am in favor of green technology, as long as it's implemented in a free-market friendly manner. This means that these green solutions must be efficient enough to survive in an unsubsidized environment, which they often aren't. An example of a successful green alternative would be Tesla, despite undergoing controversy recently, ironically, among the climate activists, it is by far the most sold EV. The reason for this is that it's a good car for those who can afford it, while the other EVs tend to be of just equal or even lesser quality than gas-powered cars. Thus, the only people who buy it have to be either 1. rich or 2. care enough about the climate to buy a car not worth the price.
Whether 'radical solutions' or 'solutions' if the problems aren't solved by actions then they'll continue to get worse and worse.
That isn't a 'digital A or B'.
Its scalar.
The biggest offender is burning coal for electricity.
Is that a profitable industry? For that group of industrialists.
But what about for the rest of the world?
True cost is what you pay on your electric bill?
The true cost is the cost to the world in many ways.
---------------
I think I get what you mean by inefficiency of alternatives.
If it loses money and can only function by relieving the loss by govenment financial assistance -
your argument might be that it therefore isn't viable?
But when you factor in the gigantic losses caused by that coalburning then that 'loses' worse.
-----------------------------
Try an analogy. Having police doesn't 'make money'.
It 'loses money'. Right? It isn't viable?
But without police - what would happen to private enterprises?
---------------
'Solutions'. When the world faced the threat of damage to the ozone layer - it was almost like a gun to everybody's head.
About 200 countries signed agreements to do something about CFC's (chlorofluorocarbons).
And acted on it.
The alternative was for a lot of living things to get fried by nasty radiation.
The 430 parts per million of CO2 and increasing is like a dial.
Every year the dial gets turned some more ...
(coal industry: 'Hey we don't care! What about our jobs and families??')
------------------
JOC - you know when there's more and more weather disasters - your federal tax money might be used to pay for the disaster relief. Right?
This all kind of reminds me of a Fram oil filter TV commercial decades ago ...
'Pay me now. Or pay me later.'
Some have made similar predictions.
According to you, what is the timeframe?
According to ~180 countries and 95%+ of scientists, you mean. The timeframes are readily available. Ignorance does not entitle you to call a halt to worldwide efforts in order to make sure you are on board with the decisions.
Maybe not me, but what about the billions of people you want to force inefficiency on?
Inefficiency like forcing companies not to dump toxic waste into the environment is ineffiency?
To someone who is blind to anything but money, the point is that there are costs that people can get away without paying without appropriate regulation. The cost of emissions is the key example. The reason people (and companies) haven't "paid their bills" is that in more primitive societies there is the intuitive belief that you can't significantly affect the atmosphere, and the general acceptance that the atmosphere is a "commons" free to be used by everyone.
The former is false, and the latter typically leads to a disaster caused by the faulty economic mechanism that idea embodies. It was analysed in detail by one economist a couple of hundred years ago in 1833 and later (in the prestigious journal Science in 1968, focusing on ecology) termed "the tragedy of the commons". In fact the recognition of the general notion goes back to Aristotle.
The economics of climate change are a small variation on the original version, which was about depletion of a resource that was conventionally free. In the case of the atmosphere it is a degradation rather than a depletion, The state of the atmosphere has a causal effect on the global climate, so degrading the atmosphere degrades the global climate. You could say the common resource is the relative quality of the global environment, and we can consume it for free.
So no, it is not "inefficient" to not treat harm as free. It is wise, and appropriate.
Bottom line - the only economic solution is to effectively stop the degradation being free, either by charging for harm or making it illegal (equivalent to a high cost).
It's important to understand the reason for the need for such a change. Everyone understands the atmosphere is essential. Most understand it is crucial to climate. Most understand it is a globally shared resource, so in some sense it is natural for it to be owned by everyone and use of it subject to common choices. But reaching this requires a global agreement.
Anyone who thinks it must be ok to put on some blinkers and ignore the fact that this is necessary is less aware than an early 19th century economist.
I agree that we should regulate for the protection of the environment.
I agree that we should regulate for the protection of the environment.
It is beyond belief anyone would not agree. However, voluntary actions to curb pollution at any level have never worked. Companies frequently declare bankruptcy to avoid cleaning up their contribution to polluting the environment. Then they re-establish under pseudonyms, or worse, fight in courts or bribe officials and contribute to politician who amend laws in their favor.
Financial incentive is the only proven method to change corporate behavior and subsidies are part of that.
I'm a dedicated capitalist and I am clearly aware that on their own, corporations will satisfy their shareholders and damn the rest.
Mostly agree, except I think subsidies are a way of doing incentives, not automatically a part. Instead of handing out subsidies, make the regulations more expensive to break, or even impose prison sentences for those who break them.
No one said that either. It seems your entire thrust is based on hunches and made up stories.
Ever do any actual self-education?