|
Trabisnikof posted:Good job refuting something no one said. Profits have been declining because of over supply, which has been intentional to hurt certain producers. Once the price rises again the profits will come back.
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 22:28 |
|
|
Forever_Peace posted:
Banks don't care what loans are used for, if they're profitable they'll make them. If fossil fuel extraction and use are profitable then financing those activities will be as well. The fact that they also finance clean energy is irrelevant, Goldman has 0 incentive to stop financing climate change and they won't stop out of the goodness of their hearts, no matter how strongly you believe they will icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Sep 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 00:59
|
|
yes, I understand how externalities work.
|
Trabisnikof posted:Yes and no force on earth is making us go to carbon as fast as possible. The argument wasn't 'nothing will happen ever' it was that letting the markets do as they will will be disastrous. Which is true. The bare minimum you can do is not to pretend that that outome is some sort of progressive coup, but apparantly even that's too much, as it doesn't let you feel good and righteous about being on the good guy's side icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 01:10 on Sep 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Actually we came close to global meltdown and that was just dealing with some lovely equity valuations which, to be clear, is the core competency of the people influencing policy. I agree with this. Expecting the same system that is directly responsible for this predicament to invisible hand itself out of it is optimistic to the point of naivety. Ultimately, the fundamental problem are that the goals of capitalism have not changed: Acquire more capital, to acquire more capital, to acquire more capital, repeat ad nauseam.Essentially, the end result is that we're pinning our hopes and dreams on global financial institutions that wield tremendous amounts of political capital to do the right thing and invest in green techs as a point of profitability. The problem is that the environmental crisis as a whole is a systemic issue, born of a system that encourages over-extraction of resources and polluting (not directly, but because it's cheaper). Governments need to step up to do something. The problem is, is that the biggest industrial countries also simultaneously have created power structures that require corporate backing to survive - especially in the US, where senators are owned and sold by their corporate backers and in China, where the ruling CCP has created a kleptocracy that can never hope to implement laws like the Clean Air Act, or the Clean Water Act. Forever_Peace is right, that we're going to see the most capital heavy companies steer the government's toward an approximation of action on climate change, but ultimately, CO2 emissions are just one of a variety of problems that need to be addressed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
Uncle Jam posted:Profits have been declining because of over supply, which has been intentional to hurt certain producers. Once the price rises again the profits will come back. Sort of. Renewables are reaching a point where it's very economical to switch to them, so the prices can't rise too much. That's honestly probably the major reason why there's over supply - the Saudis would rather have most of a lower margin market than some of a higher margin one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:The argument wasn't 'nothing will happen ever' it was that letting the markets do as they will will be disastrous. Which is true. The bare minimum you can do is not to pretend that that outome is some sort of progressive coup, but apparantly even that's too much, as it doesn't let you feel good and righteous about being on the good guy's side You seem to put up a lot of strawmen there. No one is arguing that we should deregulate the existing markets. No one is arguing that if the powerful save their own skin that would be a progressive coup. You seem to be mistaking that bad actors can have self-interest that aligns with the rest of us with trying to claim those bad actors are good actors.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Sort of. Renewables are reaching a point where it's very economical to switch to them, so the prices can't rise too much. I'm open to being proven wrong, but I'm not sure that there's any evidence that renewables are having much of an impact on oil prices in general. There are a ton of fundamental reasons for the low prices like collapsing Chinese demand. US supply has also shot through the roof over the last few years and basically everyone is doing balls to the wall pumping. Meanwhile, coal is just being destroyed by another fossil fuel.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I'm open to being proven wrong, but I'm not sure that there's any evidence that renewables are having much of an impact on oil prices in general. There are a ton of fundamental reasons for the low prices like collapsing Chinese demand. US supply has also shot through the roof over the last few years and basically everyone is doing balls to the wall pumping. Meanwhile, coal is just being destroyed by another fossil fuel. It's not directly related. Prices are low in order to smother the US supply. Prices won't get too high because then non-fossil fuels are more economical (and that's a ticking time bomb anyway). Important to note that coal is not petrol either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Do you understand how markets and externalities work? I don't think you do. Clean Energy is profitable, and so are fossil fuels. Fossil fuels being profitable is why global warming exists. Without action taken by some government entity, fossil fuels will continue to be profitable, and global warming is not going to be stopped even if their profitability declines relative to clean energy This is actually why "gently caress you fossil fuel plants, pay to clean up your drat mess" is probably one of the best ideas for reducing their use. The simple fact is that fossil fuel is absurdly profitable in the short term (for now, at least...poo poo won't last forever) if you don't clean up the mess afterwards. The leftovers from coal are also absolutely god awful. But see, the smoke just floats off into the sky and becomes invisible pretty quickly so a lot of people just don't think about it. Meanwhile coal plants spew carbon, lead, and mercury into the world. That poo poo doesn't just vanish; it ends up somewhere. The coal plant doesn't pay for it but more lead being vomited into the environment means water needs to be cleaned better unless you want to neurologically damage children. Mercury is similar; elemental mercury is loving up one of our food supplies (you know, the entire goddamned ocean). As an aside all that natural gas that gets used to make nitrates for corn farming also has problems, which is compounded by the fact that it all washes down river and has killed entire regions of the Gulf of Mexico. Fossil fuels are horrifyingly messy but those that burn them for whatever reasons generally just kind of go "welp, not my problem" and wash it down stream. Incidentally this is part of why the rich act the way they do; for pretty much ever they could do that and just pay to live wherever the problems aren't. Pollution keeps flushing downstream? gently caress it, let's all live up on the hill that the coal dust doesn't blow onto. Massive social unrest due to god awful conditions? Meh, gated communities with well-funded police forces, private guards, and stand-your-ground laws. Whatever. The rich could easily roll the poo poo downhill. With global warming they can't do that anymore. Just look at California; the rich are being whiny babbies about the fact that they can't keep pristine, green lawns in the desert. The drought is making that and their profits from farming in the state becoming increasingly impossible. They're only going to enough to keep themselves safe but I guarantee that the financial sector knows what's what. The fossil fuel industry of course isn't going to let go but as poo poo gets worse, well, let's just say that wars and political instability aren't good for business.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:let's just say that wars and political instability aren't good for business. Actually...
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Actually... Depends on the business I guess but the global financial sector relies pretty heavily on the first world continuing to exist, as well as technological infrastructure. It's extremely unlikely that the financial sector of today can survive total social breakdown. This also won't be wars of imperialism, conquest, and feudalism; if we do see extreme warming, rampant food failures, and mass migration the likes of which we've never seen before we'll end up with a world war the likes of which we've never seen before. Sorry, should have been more specific about what I was saying; fact is, this won't be the kind of situation where the rich can sit back in the seat of the empire and reap the rewards.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 05:40
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:I'll agree with what blowfish said and add to it. I am saving for retirement (if only since if things get really bad I can use that money for some wild and crazy fun ride or something). However, I am deliberately staying away from relationships because I don't want anyone to care for me or anyone to "have to" defend in case things go bad. Is that a bad approach?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 11:43
|
|
|
Seems like a wasted opportunity to enjoy life while it's still able to be enjoyed. Everybody anybody cares about dies at some point regardless, that's kind of how it works in general.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 11:51
|
|
|
AceOfFlames posted:I am saving for retirement (if only since if things get really bad I can use that money for some wild and crazy fun ride or something). However, I am deliberately staying away from relationships because I don't want anyone to care for me or anyone to "have to" defend in case things go bad. Is that a bad approach? This assumes you are caring for that person. What if you find someone who can rig up a solar water heater, grow tubers, and engage in challenging discussion that isn't dependent on modern mass media and electronics? That's someone who is valuable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 13:31
|
|
|
AceOfFlames posted:I am saving for retirement (if only since if things get really bad I can use that money for some wild and crazy fun ride or something). However, I am deliberately staying away from relationships because I don't want anyone to care for me or anyone to "have to" defend in case things go bad. Is that a bad approach? The dumb macho survivalist narrative that's parroted in these post-apocalypse movies will get you killed faster than if you have an existing support structure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
Mr. Showtime posted:"Things sure would be a lot easier if we could go on using fossil fuels like we are now" is as much a problem in a stateless society where workers own the means of production as it is in one with private ownership. In one, you need to get people to go along with a collective plan to phase out harmful levels of greenhouse gas emissions; in the other, you need to price in negative externalities to get people to phase out harmful levels of greenhouse gas emissions. Either way, a solution is going to end up involving getting Mr. Capitalist to quit building orphan blood factories because they cost eight bajillion dollars a year now and will be straight-up illegal in X years or getting Comrade CommieGIR to cause more famines than he usually does because the kolkhoz can't use tractors any more Just wanted to come back to this to say: You're a loving moron. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
AceOfFlames posted:I am saving for retirement (if only since if things get really bad I can use that money for some wild and crazy fun ride or something). However, I am deliberately staying away from relationships because I don't want anyone to care for me or anyone to "have to" defend in case things go bad. Is that a bad approach? Don't do this. Live your life. Love. Likely impending bad things should make you try to enjoy the beauty and majesty of the present even more, not less. Go SCUBA diving around a coral reef, it's really amazing. And if that mushy nonsense doesn't convince you, the earlier poster is right, you'll have a much better chance of success if things go to poo poo if you're a well adjusted chap with friends than if you're the creepy loner with sketchy eyes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Just wanted to come back to this to say: You're a loving moron. I am exercising my constitutional right to be a dumbass. It says I can do that in the subforum title  I think the bit I'm missing is the mechanism by which not having capitalism means that climate change is solved without anyone having to make any painful changes they'd prefer not to. TildeATH posted:Don't do this. Live your life. Love. Likely impending bad things should make you try to enjoy the beauty and majesty of the present even more, not less. Go SCUBA diving around a coral reef, it's really amazing. Listen to this dude, AceOfFlames. Deliberately staying away from relationships because you don't want people to be obliged to care for or defend you in cases things go bad really isn't a healthy attitude, and you might want to consider talking to someone about it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
Mr. Showtime posted:I think the bit I'm missing is the mechanism by which not having capitalism means that climate change is solved without anyone having to make any painful changes they'd prefer not to. Capitalism can be curtailed without all capitalism going away. I think we've stated that hundreds of times by now, nobody in this thread is suggesting a communist paradise would solve the issue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:
Who said I want "success"? I simply want the ability to leave this world while causing the least amount of suffering in case things go bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Capitalism can be curtailed without all capitalism going away. I think we've stated that hundreds of times by now, nobody in this thread is suggesting a communist paradise would solve the issue. People that argue for full on communism are pretty uncommon. I don't really care if some people want to try to get rich so long as they aren't making GBS threads where i eat. There are ways to get rich that don't involve coal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:People that argue for full on communism are pretty uncommon. I don't really care if some people want to try to get rich so long as they aren't making GBS threads where i eat. There are ways to get rich that don't involve coal. Pretty much, that's what pisses me off. I'm pretty sure this is the umpteenth loving time we've addressed this, that nobody is arguing full on communism or killing consumerism and capitalism overall. We're saying that there needs to be more restraint and expectations of what capitalism can and cannot do in seeking profit. That's all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Not to be all doom and gloom again, but this whole conversation really belongs in the past tense. If these changes, whatever they may be (carbon tax, for one,) had happened 15-20 years ago, there may have been time for a relatively smooth and non-disruptive transition. Right now, I think back to the war effort during WWII at home and the sacrifices and changes necessary there. If the President were to come out and say, I dunno, you can't have butter anymore because of the fight against global warming, nobody would go for it. But when we were fighting an actual war, everybody was on board. And right now (as far as I can tell, not being an expert like some here,) if we actually want to blunt the effects of climate change, we need to treat it like a war and mobilize accordingly and make sacrifices that would be unacceptable in other situations. Take a step back - for any actor in this situation, if the doctor had asked them when they were a baby if they would choose to lead to a mass extinction event or to make a little more for themselves, I'd hope the answer would be clear (given that babies can't understand or whatever.) The collective choice of humanity should be a simple one. We need to reorient ourselves and change how this issue is being presented. And if people still aren't coming on board, tough - you didn't get any butter during WWII regardless of how you felt about it. It's still a bit baffling to me that we're clear-eyed and heading into a mass extinction event and we aren't doing more. People will look back a hundred years from now with rage and a similar bafflement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The dumb macho survivalist narrative that's parroted in these post-apocalypse movies will get you killed faster than if you have an existing support structure. This is pretty much always true.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 19:48
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Did we do something about climate change recently?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
I may have farted earlier this morning, which probably didn't help.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Mozi posted:It's still a bit baffling to me that we're clear-eyed and heading into a mass extinction event and we aren't doing more. People will look back a hundred years from now with rage and a similar bafflement. It beats all the sadbrains poo poo that goes on, so I want to posit the question what would such an effort look like? I mean down to the "no you can't have butter here is some victory butter which is terrible" type stuff. Fighting a war requires different kinds of resources than trying to mitigate climate change, so I'm curious just what the various efforts would boil down to assuming the usual hypothetical benevolent dictator.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Well California just extended AB32, with a new target of Carbon emissions 40% BELOW 1990 levels within 15 years. Looks like we're probably going to meet the initial target of returning to 1990 levels by 2020. So that's cool I guess.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
kaynorr posted:It beats all the sadbrains poo poo that goes on, so I want to posit the question what would such an effort look like? I mean down to the "no you can't have butter here is some victory butter which is terrible" type stuff. Fighting a war requires different kinds of resources than trying to mitigate climate change, so I'm curious just what the various efforts would boil down to assuming the usual hypothetical benevolent dictator. I think you'd have to assume the hypothetical benevolent God-Emperor of Earth, but it would involve reducing emissions extremely quickly by whatever means necessary. How to deal with the pain, unemployment, disruption, destitution, whatever else - it would probably involve harsh measures. I'm sure one of the PhDs on here would have a better idea of the ideal path forward. My basic point was it's so weird how we can collectively make enormous sacrifices for our country but not for our species (not to mention the other living beings on this planet, who kind of get lost in the shuffle of this whole conversation.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
I really don't think we're capable of collectively making sacrifices for our country. Got an example, offhand? I am trying to think of ways we can see some kind of delineation between "sacrifice to save ourselves" and "sacrifice to save the species" in the real world and nothing is really sticking. Any path I try to take breaks down to NIMBYism, FYGM, and other total refusals to accept sacrifice or legislate sacrifice, regardless of who the sacrifice is for.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Mozi posted:My basic point was it's so weird how we can collectively make enormous sacrifices for our country but not for our species (not to mention the other living beings on this planet, who kind of get lost in the shuffle of this whole conversation.) But yes, God-Emperor commanding action would be probably easier to achieve.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 10:13
|
|
|
The Crystal Serenity is basically free and clear at this point, short of running into an iceberg between Baffin Bay and the NYC. There were some serious storms in August that greatly fractured arctic sea ice, which leads to the potential that literally the north pole might be open water. Somewhat sadly, we can't see it because NOAA didn't have funding to setup a webcam. This isn't reflected on NSIDC for whatever reason, I guess they might still count those scattered bits of ice as enough. However, since storms scattered ice around quite a lot, it seems likely that large portions of the fractured sea ice could melt before the end of the season in the next few weeks of the melt season. Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 14:43 on Sep 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
How is the polar bear's progress on evolving to being an aquatic animal going?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
Mozi posted:How is the polar bear's progress on evolving to being an aquatic animal going? Nothing that a bit of genetic engineering can't fix.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:The Crystal Serenity is basically free and clear at this point, short of running into an iceberg between Baffin Bay and the NYC. One of the polar observing satellites pretty much failed (tons of noise in the receiver) so some of the orgs have stopped releasing data or switched sources. I believe NSIDC is one of those who are greatly affected.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
AceOfFlames posted:Who said I want "success"? I simply want the ability to leave this world while causing the least amount of suffering in case things go bad. That feeling has nothing to do with climate change. You should look into Mahayana Buddhism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
Uncle Jam posted:One of the polar observing satellites pretty much failed (tons of noise in the receiver) so some of the orgs have stopped releasing data or switched sources. I believe NSIDC is one of those who are greatly affected. They were trying to rustle up funding for a new one. Guess which political party wasn't fond of the idea...
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:They were trying to rustle up funding for a new one. On top of that, about 4 years ago about 3 observing sats failed in a row on launch. It's hard to not get tinfoil about it but there is a group of people who wish that climatology didn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 14:14
|
|
|
For people who think we give a poo poo about what we say. quote:The Reuters review covered donations made during the 2016 election cycle by the political action committees (PACs) of 30 of the biggest publicly traded U.S. companies that signed Obama’s “American Business Act on Climate Change Pledge” in 2015, a public promise to enact climate-friendly corporate policies and support strong climate change oversight like the global climate accord signed in Paris. I believe keeping the status quo is the only thing that matters, and we're just gonna just adjust to mega cities, mega slums, whatever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 22:28 |
|
|
Femur posted:For people who think we give a poo poo about what we say. I guess that's damning to people who expect PACs to be single-issue organizations (and for that issue to be climate change).
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 19:32
|
|
