IPCC climate report

Forums › Off topic › IPCC climate report

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ... | 23

6754 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2110961 19-Oct-2018 13:38

MikeB4:
Dingbatt: Yes. They are called tolls.

My point above about taxing fuel was to do with the global warming tax portion rather than the facilitation of either more roads or alternative public transport. It is a punitive tax as proposed, but why should someone who loves cars and has a V8 that is only used for Sunday drives pay either a huge annual levy or an increased purchase price when the goal is to 'save a polar bear' by stopping them emitting.

You mean save all animal/insect/bird/fish life

Nope. I meant what I said.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

MikeAqua

7773 posts

Uber Geek

#2110964 19-Oct-2018 13:44

Aredwood:

Geothermal power is the perfect replacement for nuclear power in NZ.

But geothermal has GHG outputs as well. The worst of NZ's geothermal stations outputs as much C02 equivalent per MWh as a coal plant.

Mike

SaltyNZ

8219 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#2110972 19-Oct-2018 13:55

MikeAqua:
Aredwood:

Geothermal power is the perfect replacement for nuclear power in NZ.

But geothermal has GHG outputs as well. The worst of NZ's geothermal stations outputs as much C02 equivalent per MWh as a coal plant.

Except that now we are extracting energy from that CO2 instead of it just leaking into the atmosphere and meanwhile we emit *additional* CO2 getting our energy from something else.

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

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

SaltyNZ

8219 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#2110974 19-Oct-2018 13:56

Dingbatt:
MikeB4:
Dingbatt: Yes. They are called tolls.

My point above about taxing fuel was to do with the global warming tax portion rather than the facilitation of either more roads or alternative public transport. It is a punitive tax as proposed, but why should someone who loves cars and has a V8 that is only used for Sunday drives pay either a huge annual levy or an increased purchase price when the goal is to 'save a polar bear' by stopping them emitting.

You mean save all animal/insect/bird/fish life

Nope. I meant what I said.

Why should polar bears die just because you like V8s?

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

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

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2110978 19-Oct-2018 14:02

I am not anti-car. I am getting too old to care about driving performance machines, but I certainly enjoyed the thrill of the open road when I was younger. I do believe that environmental concerns are more of an issue than I used to think, and for anything meaningful to be done about that, everyone has to be prepared to make sacrifices. But that shouldn't mean you cannot continue to be a weekend V8 enthusiast.

People who come from different backgrounds, especially environmentalists, may have difficulty appreciating what car enthusiasts get from their hobby. I think that places the onus on car enthusiasts to organise and lobby for their interests. If they make their wishes known to politicians, with reasonable alternative suggestions and comprehensible explanations of their objections, they can probably achieve an acceptable outcome.

As an example, classic cars have an exemption from seat belt requirements and other features that modern vehicles must comply with. I don't see why there could not be a class of performance hobby cars that also have exemptions for certain things. As regulations grow tighter, maybe there would be a law change that would only allow them to be driven on public roads on weekends or certain holidays, but they could still be enjoyed. Maybe there would also be a special class of levy for them, based on their limited road use, so the user cost would be less than for ordinary vehicles. There are many ways in which this kind of thing could be approached.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#2110979 19-Oct-2018 14:04

MikeAqua:

Aredwood:

Geothermal power is the perfect replacement for nuclear power in NZ.

But geothermal has GHG outputs as well. The worst of NZ's geothermal stations outputs as much C02 equivalent per MWh as a coal plant.

http://nzgeothermal.org.nz/emissions/

CO2 emissions for geothermal power plants are normally in the range of 10-400 g/kWh compared to 900-1000 g/kWh for oil and coal-fired plants or 400 g/kWh for gas-fired combined cycle plant. Atmospheric emissions from geothermal plants average only about 10% of the emissions from equivalent sized fossil fuel power plants

Dingbatt

6754 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2111049 19-Oct-2018 15:26

SaltyNZ:
Dingbatt:
MikeB4:
Dingbatt: Yes. They are called tolls.

My point above about taxing fuel was to do with the global warming tax portion rather than the facilitation of either more roads or alternative public transport. It is a punitive tax as proposed, but why should someone who loves cars and has a V8 that is only used for Sunday drives pay either a huge annual levy or an increased purchase price when the goal is to 'save a polar bear' by stopping them emitting.

You mean save all animal/insect/bird/fish life

Nope. I meant what I said.

Why should polar bears die just because you like V8s?

Where in the above did it say I like V8s?
For your information, I have never owned a V8 and don't actually like them.
And I'm sure you have seen the picture of the polar bear stranded on the shrinking iceflow that is a symbol of AGW. If you look really carefully there is a V8 on the flow next door ready to pounce.(Not)

You missed entirely the point I was trying to make. If you must punish people, do so for emitting (ie burning fossil fuel), not for owning a car that they like. So tax the fuel, not the vehicle.
But once you've done that, use the money to provide more renewable energy sources. Ones that are reliable like hydro, geothermal and tidal*. Make us energy independent of Middle Eastern oil. And less reliant on any fossil fuels.

*. Tidal is reliable on the sense that it is entirely predictable, unlike wind and solar.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

SaltyNZ

8219 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#2111133 19-Oct-2018 18:08

Dingbatt:
You missed entirely the point I was trying to make. If you must punish people, do so for emitting (ie burning fossil fuel), not for owning a car that they like. So tax the fuel, not the vehicle.

Well in that case we are in complete agreement.

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

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

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2129458 19-Nov-2018 14:50

The other day I found myself herding a mob of sheep. Not something I normally do but someone left a gate open and they got into the yard. I was on my own.

I have learned from bitter experience that you do not make sheep go where you want by waving and shouting at them. That just panics them and they end up going everywhere you don't want. Instead, you need to gently nudge them, approaching cautiously and circling at a distance to get them moving in the right direction. As you creep closer, one or two will eventually break and start trotting the way you want them to go. As soon as a few sheep are moving the right way, others will follow. Soon you have them all flowing where you want.

This made me think of penguins, and they way they all slide into the sea. First they huddle up against the edge of the ice. Eventually the pressure grows too great and one or two jump in. As soon as the others see that they are all right they also begin to follow until they are all leaping into the water.

Arguments about the environment are a bit like this. Why should we go first? We are just a small country and what we do won't make any difference. Any measures we take will hurt our economy by making us more expensive and less competitive but won't do anything to save the planet. We are just too insignificant to change things. Someone with more clout should take the initiative.

Or maybe not. Maybe it just takes one tiny penguin to make the leap. One goes, another follows, soon it is a wave. It just takes one to go first.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#2129863 19-Nov-2018 23:38

Rikkitic:

This made me think of penguins, and they way they all slide into the sea. First they huddle up against the edge of the ice. Eventually the pressure grows too great and one or two jump in. As soon as the others see that they are all right they also begin to follow until they are all leaping into the water.

Arguments about the environment are a bit like this. Why should we go first? We are just a small country and what we do won't make any difference. Any measures we take will hurt our economy by making us more expensive and less competitive but won't do anything to save the planet. We are just too insignificant to change things. Someone with more clout should take the initiative.

But we don't need to harm the economy to help the environment. We could just make very big cutbacks to pension payments to get the necessary money to help the environment. People who are of pension age today, thought nothing of rampant CO2 emissions and other pollution when they were younger. Yet it was that pollution which allowed them to accumulate their assets, supported their quality of life in their younger years, and which enables the pensions that they receive today.

Compare per capita CO2 emissions today Vs 50 years ago. Also look at pollution problems such as leaded petrol, CFCs (ozone hole), nuclear radiation from historic weapons tests and usage + power station meltdowns, etc.

There have been lots of claims that we need to make very drastic cutbacks to CO2 emissions in the next decade or so to avoid runaway global warming. Assuming that that claim is true, the necessary changes would be far easier to make. If current atmospheric CO2 levels weren't already so high due to historic emissions.

So younger people are being asked to sacrifice their current and future quality of life, just to help support those who were not willing to make the same sacrifices in their younger days. Just consider the necessary pension cutbacks as a retrospective carbon tax.

As a ton of CO2 that was emitted back in 1968 is still doing the same harm to the environment as a ton of CO2 that was emitted yesterday.

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2129892 20-Nov-2018 07:03

Aredwood:

So younger people are being asked to sacrifice their current and future quality of life, just to help support those who were not willing to make the same sacrifices in their younger days.

Lots of today's environmental issues (in particular, climate change) weren't even known to be issues 40 years ago. You can't say that people "were not willing to make the same sacrifices" if there wasn't any question about making a sacrifice.

Not to mention that younger people (as well as older people) have got the benefit of the economic development enabled by decisions which, 40 years later, turned out to be bad.

SaltyNZ

8219 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#2129898 20-Nov-2018 07:33

frankv:

Lots of today's environmental issues (in particular, climate change) weren't even known to be issues 40 years ago.

But the big ones certainly were. Exxon knew about climate change as early as 1977 and confirmed it for sure by about 1982, and the first known article on the idea was published in The Rodney and Otamatea Times in 1912. Furthermore, even if the general public didn't know about climate change, they did know about the Arab Oil Crisis of 1973 which should have been a big signal that reduction in oil dependence would be a good idea, if for no other reason than that it is a strategic weakness.

On the plus side we at least have the Montreal Protocol, signed in 1987, which shows that actually, we can get together as an international community and fix the mistakes we were making.

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

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

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2129912 20-Nov-2018 07:53

SaltyNZ:

frankv:

Lots of today's environmental issues (in particular, climate change) weren't even known to be issues 40 years ago.

But the big ones certainly were. Exxon knew about climate change as early as 1977 and confirmed it for sure by about 1982, and the first known article on the idea was published in The Rodney and Otamatea Times in 1912. Furthermore, even if the general public didn't know about climate change, they did know about the Arab Oil Crisis of 1973 which should have been a big signal that reduction in oil dependence would be a good idea, if for no other reason than that it is a strategic weakness.

On the plus side we at least have the Montreal Protocol, signed in 1987, which shows that actually, we can get together as an international community and fix the mistakes we were making.

Of course they know.

It's all about making money.

Just follow this.

Part one: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/jun/28/solar-power-energy-us-utilities-environment-climate-change

Part two, after the fossil fuel lobbyists realise they need to make more money https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trump-effect-solar-insight/billions-in-u-s-solar-projects-shelved-after-trump-panel-tariff-idUSKCN1J30CT

tdgeek

29743 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2129930 20-Nov-2018 08:37

frankv:

Aredwood:

So younger people are being asked to sacrifice their current and future quality of life, just to help support those who were not willing to make the same sacrifices in their younger days.

Lots of today's environmental issues (in particular, climate change) weren't even known to be issues 40 years ago. You can't say that people "were not willing to make the same sacrifices" if there wasn't any question about making a sacrifice.

Not to mention that younger people (as well as older people) have got the benefit of the economic development enabled by decisions which, 40 years later, turned out to be bad.

Plus, I think emission levels have doubled since the 1980's, so while we know more since after 1980, we pollute a lot more.

MikeAqua

7773 posts

Uber Geek

#2129942 20-Nov-2018 09:04

Rikkitic:

Or maybe not. Maybe it just takes one tiny penguin to make the leap. One goes, another follows, soon it is a wave. It just takes one to go first.

Our first-penguin policies on nuclear free and free trade has IMO proven that theory incorrect. The same countries (soon to be more) all still have nukes. The larger economies in the world are still heavily protected by both tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers.

A good chunk of the worlds population knows that NZ doesn't exist. A bigger chunk doesn't give a hoot what we say or do. Can you imagine either a Demo or GOP presidential candidate using NZ's brave stance on climate change to convince US voters to embrace significant climate policies?

Mike

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ... | 23