Economic Growth and Combatting Climate Change, New Yorker Magazine

[Crick]

Just read this on Google News. Good article with good points. Fighting climate change hasn't hurt anyone.

The False Choice Between Economic Growth and Combatting Climate Change

 

[Correll]

We are putting plenty of money into energy research.

Taxing energy is just going to reduce standards of living and quality of life for Western, and especially American citizens.

 

[Crick]

The data indicate that is not the case. Did you read the article?

 

[Rambunctious]

AOC says we only have 12 years left to live...why do anything at all?....charge up the cards and have fun....

 

[Correll]

The data indicate that is not the case. Did you read the article?

I read them claim otherwise. I did not see any attempt by them to support that with any real argument or data.

 

[Crick]

The data indicate that is not the case. Did you read the article?

I read them claim otherwise. I did not see any attempt by them to support that with any real argument or data.

Did you see this link: https://www.nber.org/papers/w4896.pdf?new_window=1

 

[Crick]

AOC says we only have 12 years left to live...why do anything at all?....charge up the cards and have fun....

What 12 billion do you think the US spends each year to promote foreign abortions?

 

[Rambunctious]

AOC says we only have 12 years left to live...why do anything at all?....charge up the cards and have fun....

What 12 billion do you think the US spends each year to promote foreign abortions?

 

[Correll]

The data indicate that is not the case. Did you read the article?

I read them claim otherwise. I did not see any attempt by them to support that with any real argument or data.

Did you see this link: https://www.nber.org/papers/w4896.pdf?new_window=1

A 41 page study?

Give me the supposed point in a bullet or two.

 

[Pilot1]

The fact is that all the "fixes" for man made climate change include MORE TAXES. Carbon taxes, and artificially raising the cost of all fossil fuels which not only adds to the cost of transporting a product, but also making a product as oil is used in ALL PLASTICS, and other materials.

Also, proponents want a Cap, and Trade program for Carbon which would, wait for it......just be yet another TAX. All economy and job killing.

 

[Crick]

There is no need to tax petroleum in processes that do not put fossil carbon into the atmosphere. And there is no need or desire to harm the economy. The idea is only to apply financial pressure to start reducing use. Such taxes would start out very small and would slowly work their way up. Of course, if this had been started 20 years ago, as it should have, it could have been implemented far more slowly than it now requires. But people like you screamed "oh No! No taxes! You'll drive us all to the poorhouse!" Now instead, we can all become refugees in our own failed states. See if you find a cardboard box preferable to whatever you're living in now.

 

[Pilot1]

Pressure to reduce the use of fossil fuels, essentially destroying demand through higher prices is an ECONOMY and JOB KILLING initiative.

 

[skookerasbil]

There is no need to tax petroleum in processes that do not put fossil carbon into the atmosphere. And there is no need or desire to harm the economy. The idea is only to apply financial pressure to start reducing use. Such taxes would start out very small and would slowly work their way up. Of course, if this had been started 20 years ago, as it should have, it could have been implemented far more slowly than it now requires. But people like you screamed "oh No! No taxes! You'll drive us all to the poorhouse!" Now instead, we can all become refugees in our own failed states. See if you find a cardboard box preferable to whatever you're living in now.

Oh Gawd

Thankfully, very few share your views. You might as well be stalking around through Siberia in your birthday suit shaking a bananna at people!

By the way s0n....only a few thousand people will end up reading the article. Nobody reads New Yorker Magazine. Far more folks will read this months Motor Trend issue on the new GT500 Mustang....725 tire shredding horses under the hood! THAT inspires millions!

 

[Crick]

Pressure to reduce the use of fossil fuels, essentially destroying demand through higher prices is an ECONOMY and JOB KILLING initiative.

Pressure to reduce the use of fossil fuels is a method to accelerate adoption of alternative energy. Adding half a penny to the cost of a kilowatt every three months (or some such scheme) is not going to cause any catastrophic failures. Obviously, in the long run, I hope to see every job in the fossil fuel industry go away. But I also expect to see far MORE jobs created from the use of altnernative energy. And that, in fact, has been the case:

Renewable Energy Industry Creates Jobs 12 Times Faster Than Rest of U.S.

U.S. Renewable Energy Jobs Employ 800,000+ People and Rising: Infographic

U.S. Renewable Energy Jobs Employ 800,000+ People and Rising: Infographic

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148117309011

New data shows solar energy creates more jobs in America than any other industry

Alternative energy, primarily wind turbines and photovoltaic, have already created many times more jobs than exist in the entire coal industry. Your fear mongering is not justified by the facts.

 

[Pilot1]

We have so much fossil fuel reserves and finding more every day. So much so that it should be considered a RENEWABLE. There is NO REASON to use much more expensive alternatives at this point. NO REASON.

There is no reason to ARTIFICIALLY force more expensive, and inefficient wind, and solar on people. NONE.

 

[Crick]

Of course there's a reason. AGW is a threat that must be dealt with.

As for being renewable, how much will the fuel bill for a 10 GW PV field run every year?

Hmm... zero?
Correct.

And how much will the fuel bill for a 10 GW wind farm run every year?

Hmm... zero?
Correct.

And how much will the fuel bill for a 10 GW fossil-fuel-fired power plant run every year?

Hmm...$22,136,520 (per SAS Output)
Correct?


And one hundred years from now what will those annual fuel bills be?

PV: zero
Wind: zero
Fossil fuel: Est greater than $132,000,000 (based on the uncompounded growth seen at SAS Output)

 

[skookerasbil]

Of course there's a reason. AGW is a threat that must be dealt with.

As for being renewable, how much will the fuel bill for a 10 GW PV field run every year?

Hmm... zero?
Correct.

And how much will the fuel bill for a 10 GW wind farm run every year?

Hmm... zero?
Correct.

And how much will the fuel bill for a 10 GW fossil-fuel-fired power plant run every year?

Hmm...$22,136,520 (per SAS Output)
Correct?


And one hundred years from now what will those annual fuel bills be?

PV: zero
Wind: zero
Fossil fuel: Est greater than $132,000,000 (based on the uncompounded growth seen at SAS Output)

Hmmm........then why does the EIA and every reputable energy projection still have renewables at only 10% for providing electricity in 2040?

10%

Me thinks you are spewing a line of shit s0n!! Because you conveniently leave out most of the costs of rolling out renewable energy systems. Governments have not and will not! Sorry for you.

By the way, the real ( mega ) costs of solar and wind are well documented in the thread MORE PROOF THE SKEPTICS ARE WINNING. There are a billion links in there about the costs of renewable energy. You need to educate yourself s0n.......this matrix thinking of yours is ghey.

 

[JLW]

The fact is that every single damn environmental initiative in the past 50 years has met with the same obstructionist, bullshit science and and predictions of catastrophe that we see with deniers today.

Taking action on Acid Rain would destroy the economy.
Stopping Big corporations from dumping waste into our water ways would destroy manufacturing.
Banning DDT would destroy agriculture.
Passing Clean Air and Water legislation would destroy industry.
Passing fuel efficiency standards would destroy the auto manufacturers.

None of it came to pass and we are much. much better off because of this legislation.

Now, it is the same shit on climate change but only the stakes are much higher.

That is why I don't give a shit what deniers say or their junk science. I've heard it again and again.

Just the same shit and these folks have been proven wrong time after time.

 

[skookerasbil]

The fact is that every single damn environmental initiative in the past 50 years has met with the same obstructionist, bullshit science and and predictions of catastrophe that we see with deniers today.

Taking action on Acid Rain would destroy the economy.
Stopping Big corporations from dumping waste into our water ways would destroy manufacturing.
Banning DDT would destroy agriculture.
Passing Clean Air and Water legislation would destroy industry.
Passing fuel efficiency standards would destroy the auto manufacturers.

None of it came to pass and we are much. much better off because of this legislation.

Now, it is the same shit on climate change but only the stakes are much higher.

That is why I don't give a shit what deniers say or their junk science. I've heard it again and again.

Just the same shit and these folks have been proven wrong time after time.

"The stakes are much higher"

Thankfully s0n, that is the opinion of the distinct minority. And thank God for that! Oh....and youd be better off jettisoning the religious- type presentation. It fubar's the whole credibility thing. Just sayin'

 

[Crick]

Of course there's a reason. AGW is a threat that must be dealt with.

As for being renewable, how much will the fuel bill for a 10 GW PV field run every year?

Hmm... zero?
Correct.

And how much will the fuel bill for a 10 GW wind farm run every year?

Hmm... zero?
Correct.

And how much will the fuel bill for a 10 GW fossil-fuel-fired power plant run every year?

Hmm...$22,136,520 (per SAS Output)
Correct?


And one hundred years from now what will those annual fuel bills be?

PV: zero
Wind: zero
Fossil fuel: Est greater than $132,000,000 (based on the uncompounded growth seen at SAS Output)

Hmmm........then why does the EIA and every reputable energy projection still have renewables at only 10% for providing electricity in 2040?

10%

Me thinks you are spewing a line of shit s0n!! Because you conveniently leave out most of the costs of rolling out renewable energy systems. Governments have not and will not! Sorry for you.

By the way, the real ( mega ) costs of solar and wind are well documented in the thread MORE PROOF THE SKEPTICS ARE WINNING. There are a billion links in there about the costs of renewable energy. You need to educate yourself s0n.......this matrix thinking of yours is ghey.

The term "renewable" makes no reference to panels, blades, towers, turbines, generators or boilers. It applies to FUEL.