CDZ Climate Denial or Climate Dishonesty?

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by jwoodie, Jun 23, 2017.

  1. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    50,843
    Thanks Received:
    12,551
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +18,496
    I am all for good will and I definitely believe in giving stuff away that we don't need and somebody else can get some good and beneficial use out of.

    But this isn't really about charity. It is a about allowing people who are determined to improve their own circumstances the liberty/ability to use the resources they have to do that.

    If an Indian reservation for example, decided to build a coal plant and exploit its own coal reserves to empower or improve the status of its own people, I sure wouldn't want UNNECESSARY law/rules/regs to prevent them from doing that.
     
  2. Toronado3800
    Offline

    Toronado3800 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,283
    Thanks Received:
    334
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +587
    We just WANT to disagree because of talk shows and the message board.

    I think we are in agreement. I want everyone in Chad to have electricity.

    Maybe our disagreement can be in what percentage of a tax break to give companies who funnel slightly obsolete "1990's" technology to them to help generate reasonably clean electric and not have to learn like we did.
     
  3. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    50,843
    Thanks Received:
    12,551
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +18,496
    A tax break so that U.S. companies could provide affordable technology to underdeveloped countries would certainly be a form of foreign aid I could support.

    But the more important thing is allow countries to exploit and/or utilize resources so that their people become prosperous and not worry so much about exactly how they do that. People who lack adequate food, potable water, shelter or are insecure about ability to obtain basic necessities or minimal wants don't generally give a damn about the environment or much of anything else other than their own survival and that of those they love. Just providing electricity won't change that fact much.

    But if electricity or other modern power sources gave the people ability to work their way out of poverty and into prosperity, it is pretty much a given that the people would then have the power and incentive to demand clean air, clean water, clean soil, and aesthetic beauty.

    Such has been the case with civilization everywhere it has become prosperous.
     
  4. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn Senior Mod Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    40,538
    Thanks Received:
    6,424
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +21,726
    Part of this is just statistical distributions. 104DegF is at the FAR end of a distribution that is NOT plain Normal or Gauss. It's more like the long tail on a Rayleigh Distribution.

    So the historical frequency of 104DegF days IS probably 4 or 5 times SMALLER than 102degF days.
    When you promote the ENTIRE DISTRIBUTION by a mere couple degrees Fahr -- it IS probably a much higher number.

    What all this misses is -- there's really not MUCH critical biological impact difference between 102degF and 104degF days. Because NOW -- all the earlier predictions of 10 or 12 degF higher by 2100 have been pulled back into much smaller predictions.
     
  5. FA_Q2
    Offline

    FA_Q2 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    16,003
    Thanks Received:
    2,357
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Washington State
    Ratings:
    +5,491
    And that really is the point there - in scale coal is far easier. If we were talking about single households then yes, I think you are likely correct that renewables would be far easier to set up. The complexity to set up a coal fired plant in my basement makes it impossible :D In these third world nations though there are little to no people that can afford the costs of solar panels to meet any power needs. Rather, collectively they do have the economic ability to set up a coal plant for the city.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1

Share This Page