Climate Change Thread

Forums › Off topic › Climate Change Thread

1 | ... | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | ... | 30

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3130099 21-Sep-2023 11:41

SaltyNZ:
Geektastic:

It’s voters that will be forced into penury. Not governments.

But why would they be 'forced into penury'? Stuff wears out and has to be replaced all the time. Energy needs are growing (despite efficiency gains) all the time. You have to replace your old car eventually. You have to replace your old heater. You have to replace - and expand - your old power generation & transmission infrastructure.

There is literally no downside to saying that no new ICE vehicles can be registered after 2030, because a) if you bought a brand new one in 2023 it would be 7 years old in 2030 and you would still be able to drive it if you wanted to anyway and b) the writing is already on the wall with the huge growth in EV market share due to the simple economics of it's so much cheaper.

There is no downside to saying that all new generation must be renewable because a) you need to build new generation regardless and b) it's cheaper to install wind and solar than anything else. Granted, storage is currently an issue, but it isn't currently a world-ending problem and there are numerous solutions at various stages of maturity some or all of which will pan out before it is.

Also, all of these things create jobs, and we love jobs - jobs are what keep people off the benefit. Solar panels don't install themselves.

If voters are forced into penury it isn't because of woke. They were going to be forced into penury regardless because no matter what you replace all the current stuff with, you still have to replace it with something.

Burying your head in the sand and shouting 'lalalalalala there is no climate crisis' will force you into penury even more surely as the 3 billion-ish people who live around the equator find all their crops have failed and their homes are literally lethally hot during summer so they flee to ... where? Anywhere where crops still grow. Like New Zealand, probably.

Because in some countries they’re being forced to replace things that aren’t broken at considerable expense (for example gas central heating) and to replace it with things that don’t work as well.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3130100 21-Sep-2023 11:43

MikeB4:
Geektastic:

It’s voters that will be forced into penury. Not governments.

Future generations will be forced into much worse if we don't take action. The stupidity of the current UK Prime Minister shows that the UK is still a force for evil.

Hilarious!

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19065 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16305

Lifetime subscriber

#3130103 21-Sep-2023 11:54

Geektastic: Because in some countries they’re being forced to replace things that aren’t broken at considerable expense (for example gas central heating) and to replace it with things that don’t work as well.

No-one is being forced to replace anything. It will just cost them a lot more to continue living like Neanderthals. You can keep your ICE dinosaur as a classic and feed it $20 a litre petrol whenever you can find a specialty supplier who still sells petrol.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#3130107 21-Sep-2023 12:04

SaltyNZ:

Geektastic:

It’s voters that will be forced into penury. Not governments.

There is literally no downside to saying that no new ICE vehicles can be registered after 2030, because a) if you bought a brand new one in 2023 it would be 7 years old in 2030 and you would still be able to drive it if you wanted to anyway and b) the writing is already on the wall with the huge growth in EV market share due to the simple economics of it's so much cheaper.

and c) by 2030, EVs will be better than ICEVs for the same price. They're already at the point where TCOO is about the same. In 2030, only old fuddy-duddies will even want an ICEV, much the same as nowadays almost no-one wants manuals.

My original question stands: Is there any evidence that spending money on climate change actually forces governments OR taxpayers OR voters into penury?

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#3130110 21-Sep-2023 12:16

SaltyNZ:

Granted I have no clear perception of how much $33 trillion really is, but it feels like a lot more than I get paid.

You could be a trillionaire if you teleported back to the Weimar Republic in 1923. :) Or maybe Zimbabwe in 2007. Interestingly, both of these governments managed to drive themselves and a fair number of their voters into penury without spending up large on arms. Admittedly, Weimar had to pay crippling reparations for WW1, but from 1924 to 1929 it managed OK. At which point the Great Depression also drove many to penury, which was relieved by arms spending for WW2.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19065 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16305

Lifetime subscriber

#3130115 21-Sep-2023 12:26

frankv:

SaltyNZ:

Granted I have no clear perception of how much $33 trillion really is, but it feels like a lot more than I get paid.

You could be a trillionaire if you teleported back to the Weimar Republic in 1923. :) Or maybe Zimbabwe in 2007. Interestingly, both of these governments managed to drive themselves and a fair number of their voters into penury without spending up large on arms. Admittedly, Weimar had to pay crippling reparations for WW1, but from 1924 to 1929 it managed OK. At which point the Great Depression also drove many to penury, which was relieved by arms spending for WW2.

It was also relieved by the New Deal, which made a lot of difference to a lot of lives for a very long time.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#3130118 21-Sep-2023 12:36

Geektastic:

Hilarious!

I doubt future generations will find Rishi Sunak and the other right wing buffoon leaders and sycophants hilarious.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

cddt

1967 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1904

#3130149 21-Sep-2023 13:27

Geektastic:

Because in some countries they’re being forced to replace things that aren’t broken at considerable expense (for example gas central heating) and to replace it with things that don’t work as well.

I would love to replace the gas central heating in my new house with a heat pump. Haven't brought myself to do it yet though, as the equivalent heat pump would be $20-25k (we had two quotes so far) and it feels wasteful as the previous owners only just installed the gas before they put the house on the market.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3130165 21-Sep-2023 13:50

Rishi Sunak has said he would spare the public from the “unacceptable costs” of net zero as he scaled back a string of flagship environmental policies.

The Prime Minister warned that voters would revolt against making the UK a net zero carbon emitter by 2050 unless politicians were more honest and “realistic” about the costs involved.

Mr Sunak delayed the ban on new petrol car sales from 2030 to 2035, pushed back the ban on new oil boiler sales from 2026 to 2035, and increased heat pump grants to £7,500.

He also promised not to introduce new taxes to discourage eating meat or flying, ruled out orders for drivers to car-share, and scrapped plans for households to use up to seven bins for recycling.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3130167 21-Sep-2023 13:52

MikeB4:
Geektastic:

Hilarious!

I doubt future generations will find Rishi Sunak and the other right wing buffoon leaders and sycophants hilarious.

He’s about as right wing as Che Guevara.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#3130169 21-Sep-2023 13:55

Geektastic: Rishi Sunak has said he would spare the public from the “unacceptable costs” of net zero as he scaled back a string of flagship environmental policies.

The Prime Minister warned that voters would revolt against making the UK a net zero carbon emitter by 2050 unless politicians were more honest and “realistic” about the costs involved.

Mr Sunak delayed the ban on new petrol car sales from 2030 to 2035, pushed back the ban on new oil boiler sales from 2026 to 2035, and increased heat pump grants to £7,500.

He also promised not to introduce new taxes to discourage eating meat or flying, ruled out orders for drivers to car-share, and scrapped plans for households to use up to seven bins for recycling.

So that just highlights Britain's propensity to do evil

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#3130170 21-Sep-2023 13:59

Sunak is a typical right wing politician with near perfect right wing credentials.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

kingdragonfly

11989 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12874

Subscriber

#3130173 21-Sep-2023 14:06

I would love to replace the gas central heating in my new house with a heat pump. Haven't brought myself to do it yet though, as the equivalent heat pump would be $20-25k (we had two quotes so far) and it feels wasteful as the previous owners only just installed the gas before they put the house on the market.

In New Zealand, typically heat pumps will pay for themselves in 5 to 10 years, of a 20 year life span.

If you don't have the money, or want to wait till interest rates drop to speed-up return-on-investment, or want to put money into paying off your mortgage faster, those are legitimate reasons.

As gas prices increase, it's likely you'll looking at much better for much sooner than 10 years"

However it sounds like a "sunk cost" or "lost cost" fallacy. Article:

"Last fall, I had tickets to an NFL game. It was freezing that day, and all my friends backed out. But I didn’t want to waste the $70 I’d spent on the ticket. So I went to the game and was absolutely miserable. I hate to admit it, but my friends were right.

I didn’t even have much vested interest in the teams playing. Nor did I have a good time at the game; I would’ve been much better off just watching it from the comfort of my couch. But I was obsessed with not having wasted the money I spent on the ticket. In hindsight, I know I should have recognized that it was a sunk cost, chalked up the loss and moved on. I shouldn’t have let it cloud my judgment.

But when it comes to sunk costs, our instinctive opposition to “wasting money” we’ve already lost can hurt us in many ways. In investing specifically, it can make you hold on longer than you should, and cost you even more."

SaltyNZ

8865 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9545

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3130192 21-Sep-2023 15:00

Just as well climate change is a hoax, or we'd have the South Island on fire and flooding at the same time.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

ezbee

2651 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3089

#3130201 21-Sep-2023 15:54

Arbitrary fuel vehicle bans.

To be fair, it is an area where Adam Smiths 'hidden hand' can work.
The arbitrary ban is well very 'arbitrary'. Turns people contrarian.

I can see multiple holes punched in this like a sieve as we find we need fuel vehicles in a number of areas to keep going.
Cost of said fuel will limit this to essential needed applications naturally enough.
Various emergency, and civil defense, and a number of others like services for remote communities with janky infrastructure.

Some will also take this as a ban on Hybrids, and there may be a longer place for these.

Soft power goes a long way too. I'd say a 'Better way'

Put more effort into more public transport at lower cost, and people will naturally find they use their cars less.
Next generations take on this even moreso.

Car sellers like Elon Musk will hate this.
Make life easy for those without a car and you burn less resources making em.

Don't get sniffy at incremental steps along the way.
If you can deploy 2x, 3x, 4x as much public transport per $ with fuel or hybrid busses,
don't demand the 'purity' of a meager electric service.

Trains and light rail can be electric very easily, with just a bit of infrastructure, more efficient than electric cars.
Which is why Elon Musk hates these with a passion.

Take compounding steps along the way, and you find over time you will be making more progress, like compound interest.
Bludgeoning people into submission is not necessary.

Sometimes its not the best thing to invest in one 'pure' green school for select few.
You could have greened the heating and power for a whole regions schools as a lesson to all attending them instead.

1 | ... | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | ... | 30