Solar is not an "of course." There are very real merits to alternative energies, but we need to be realistic. The only feasible solution to carbon based energy is nuclear fission. Fusion perhaps in 100+ years. Investment funding and politics ensure we will not see a nuclear resurgence in this country for a long time.
Cutting edge home solutions are nice and are a great way for wealthier families to off set their energy use, but a $3k battery pack, $10k solar panels, and $$$ for install/misc isn't feasible for the vast majority of Americans let alone people around the world. You can't point to an upper class solution for a world wide problem.
NASA building a green roof, water re-circulation, solar panels, this and that is wonderful. A great future to look forward to in a century. Now tell me how to integrate all that into a $80,000 stick built home on a budget, let alone try to retrofit a run-down rental property.
Nothing significant has changed since Rio 1992 or Kyoto 1997. Paris 2015 will be no different. The talking will continue until we realize climate change is a failure of a system, which – on the back of fossil fuel – is geared towards exponential economic growth. Nobody who sits at the negotiation table in Paris has the mandate nor inclination to ask fundamental, systemic questions of the logic of the dominant economic system and the way we consume the resources of this planet.
You don't seem to be up on current alternative energy policy so let me help you out.
The Obama admin has approved nuclear power plants. The reason there isn't more isn't about politics.
http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...says-he-supported-first-nuclear-power-plant-/
Also, solar energy isn't just for the rich. In fact with various programs like PPA's, a lot of times solar is free to the homeowner.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...u-really-get-solar-panels-installed-for-free/
Sure I guess by "damaging economic policy" you meant something else. /s
Economically damaging is a wide range of issues. There is a fine balance. CAFE standards are fantastic IMO. New aero for semis is good and cheap. Increasing insulation code standards on new construction, government loans on commercial alternative energy sources, and funding for energy research/scholarships are all great. What I mean by economically damaging policy would be extreme energy limits/caps or major tax increases on usage to the point that we lower our standard of living. While we cut and trim our usage, there are 2-3 billion people still burning wood for heat. They aren't even on modern energy systems yet, but they eventually will be.
Climate change is going to happen. I think it is great to provide a path to mitigating it, but eliminating it is not going to happen any time soon if ever. Perhaps one day our kids will use fusion/solar/hydrogen and live a clean life, but right now and for the foreseeable future we can't. We certainly can't before we begin noticing climate issues at home.
Local and State are major road blocks to nuclear. NIMBY. Then there is the long term issue of storage. Luckily, Harry Reid is out, but Obama has been no friend to Yucca Mountain and offers nearly no solutions other than the vague recommendations in the BRC report. Setting up a nuclear power plant is billions of dollars per facility and needs 20-30 years to recoup the costs. Financial institutes are not quick to give billion dollar loans on long term projects and cost over runs are very common with nuclear facilities. Lastly, Obama did not approve a new nuclear site. He approved an expansion of two more reactors on an existing nuclear power site and the permit was in the works before he ever got into office. Recently the construction has been delayed by 4 years, it was supposed to be completed next year but has been pushed to 2020.
Building a completely new nuclear plant would be quite a marvel these days. Even getting one going would get headlines let alone enough of them to displace coal/gas plants.
Funny how you are going to "get me up to date" with a solar article from 2011. And that set up is completely unsustainable on a large scale. That company installs the panels on your house, collects a government subsidy (which we pay for), and then still charges the homeowner for power at a rate of 10% less than simply buying the power off the grid. The contract is for 20 years and at that point the homeowner is given the option to purchase the equipment at the depreciated rate. Does it save carbon? Yup. But the government gets to pay thousands in set up costs. Those expenses come from somewhere. It doesn't scale.
I'm truly not meaning to be contrarian. I'm being realistic.
Of which none of that is happening or has been proposed.
Subyman said:I know climate change is real and the evidence shows humans are contributing. However, I don't think damaging economic policy is reasonable to combat the change. Does that make me a hypocrite? Not at all. Our civilization has grown so large that we now affect the global climate. Its a milestone IMO and was bound to happen. The faster we all accept it then we can begin to figure out how it affects us and what we need to do moving forward.
I never said it was happening, I said I wouldn't support it if it did happen. I'm not for lowering the standard of living to try to combat climate change. Maybe you should reread my initial post, I think you are arguing against something I've never said:
No you are simply moving the goal posts. You said solar was for the rich, I showed you an old article so you could see how, that is in fact, not the case and hasn't been the case for some time.
If you'd like I can also post more current articles which also destroy your bullshit claim of not scaling. Solar prices have come down dramatically because of government help and adoption, it's the exact same game plan we used for oil and look how well that scaled. But that's all besides the point because the point which you glossed over was that solar does indeed save carbon and it certainly hasn't negatively impacted economic policy no matter how you want to define it.
Ironically the very thing you claim to be a solution for the interim fails in every measurement you've tried to discredit solar with. It's cost prohibitive, it's waste leads to other potentially worse issues, a failure has the potential worsen the livelihood of many, and it doesn't scale well. All of that was covered, of course, in the article I linked to that also said experts agreed that even an expansion of an existing site counts as a new nuclear plant.
No of course you didn't say it was happening you just implied that and then made another post with examples of why solar and wind is unfeasible (doesn't scale) and then when I counted you moved the goal posts.
Why don't you figure out exactly what your position was and the point of the original post of yours I responded to so I and everyone else can see exactly what you are saying,
I can certainly clarify. In my original post, the top paragraph isn't really related to the next paragraph. The top paragraph is highlighting how some believe wind and solar are the only power we need, when the real solution is a combination that plays to each energy source's strengths. Nuclear/oil/coal for base load, oil/coal/stored-alternative for peak or fast response, and alternative energies where ever possible. We aren't going to power the entire US on wind and solar alone, it is too unstable without completely rebuilding the grid.
The next paragraph states my position that climate change is real and humans are contributing. However, I don't believe we should accept a lower quality of life to combat the problem (hence the damaging economic policies.) We DO need to quit debating over if climate change exists or not so we can actually focus on both mitigating and figuring out how we are going to live in the changing climate. What problems will we face with rising temperatures? How do we prepare for rising sea levels? All those questions and more need to be addressed, but we need to collectively accept it first.
There was a good article the other day about the world's dealing with climate change. This paragraph stood out to me. Until we move beyond basing our "economic" success on ever increasing consumption of stuff then nothing will change. I don't see that happening.
It's all rooted in his quest to live up to his pappy's dream of ending colonialism.
Sure I guess by "damaging economic policy" you meant something else. /s
The United States of America was founded by rebelling against Colonialism.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it...
Do you also advocate for spending all of your paycheck rather than saving and investing part of it for the future? That's the same "logic" you're applying to climate change: only consider the immediate impact on our standard of living instead of sacrificing a bit now for a better future.This is really what it's about. People like him honestly think that imposing carbon taxes and pricing energy such that people reduce their desired use levels because they can no longer afford it somehow leads to an economic benefit. Kinda like how if we just gave yet more subsidies to solar power that would somehow create tons of jobs. It's a bizarro world where they think it creates a BETTER economy when we increased energy input costs make finished goods more expensive, we switch to using fuel stocks that can't maintain the integrity of the grid for baseline power generation, and energy prices are raised regressively with the biggest impact to the poor and reducing their standard of living. All at a cost of 2-3% of world GDP in perpetuity.
This is really what it's about. People like him honestly think that imposing carbon taxes and pricing energy such that people reduce their desired use levels because they can no longer afford it somehow leads to an economic benefit. Kinda like how if we just gave yet more subsidies to solar power that would somehow create tons of jobs. It's a bizarro world where they think it creates a BETTER economy when we increased energy input costs make finished goods more expensive, we switch to using fuel stocks that can't maintain the integrity of the grid for baseline power generation, and energy prices are raised regressively with the biggest impact to the poor and reducing their standard of living. All at a cost of 2-3% of world GDP in perpetuity.
As opposed to people like you who think that fossil fuels should be able to enjoy the ability to inflict negative externalities on the rest of society for free in perpetuity. .
in perpetuity
today
WHAT...... THE....... FUCK.......?!?!?! For christ's sake, those fossil fuels are the ONLY reason that the entire world's population can be fed through the efforts of less than 5%. End fossil fuel use today and watch 95% of world's population die in a year. The POSITIVE externalities of fossil fuel use outweigh the negative externalities by a factor of 1000 or more.
This is really what it's about. People like him honestly think that imposing carbon taxes and pricing energy such that people reduce their desired use levels because they can no longer afford it somehow leads to an economic benefit. Kinda like how if we just gave yet more subsidies to solar power that would somehow create tons of jobs. It's a bizarro world where they think it creates a BETTER economy when we increased energy input costs make finished goods more expensive, we switch to using fuel stocks that can't maintain the integrity of the grid for baseline power generation, and energy prices are raised regressively with the biggest impact to the poor and reducing their standard of living. All at a cost of 2-3% of world GDP in perpetuity.
As opposed to people like you who think that fossil fuels should be able to enjoy the ability to inflict negative externalities on the rest of society for free in perpetuity. That's bad economics, as the cost is there whether we pay it now or pay it later.
Oddly enough, those who make exactly the (bafflingly wrong) argument that government debt represents borrowing from our children, this sort of thing EXACTLY represents future costs to our children. Shockingly enough, you only care about the former and not the latter. Why? Because it was always a matter of ideology, not actual economics.