Climate Change Town Hall - CNN

[Eastwood 4394]

The coal miners are the best example as to why this would lead to a world of hurt. You can't expect these people to read the tea leaves and know that they are in a dead end job. They are working the job that they have experience in and receive pay for. You are asking them to leave that for a promise. The shoulder shrugging response of "oh, well. Just change jobs" or "Lead, follow, or get out the way" is what is going to keep Texas red instead of purple and what is going to keep the New Green Deal from happening. 2016 should be a good lesson as to what happens when you disregard the working lower-class. They will abandon the Democratic Party. How do you think Webb County would feel about taking away the only industry that has allowed the poor in that county to become middle class?

I'm not saying abandon the New Green Deal. I'm saying it needs a massive economic overhaul if it is to be taken seriously by the actual middle class people who depend on the oil and gas industry. As it stands today, it leaves too many people behind. Sure, buggy makers are no more. So are blacksmiths. But they had decades to adjust to a change that was driven by private innovation and the market. The Green New Deal is a government mandate to find a new way to support yourself and your family in 10 years. That has economic disaster written all over it.

[elfenix 34172]

Causing trillions of dollars in harm to defend billions of dollars in assets is not a smart move, economically speaking.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

Lies, half truths, hysteria, hyperbole, fear, and insults.

Eastwood has genuine concerns that should be addressed. You got nothing.

 

Yeah, you got no answers to the issues, so just go on with your weak resorts.  Show me the insult please.  The insult is to peoples intelligence when the green plan is Made to be a viable road forward now.

[fattyflattie 4636]

@Eastwood, I’m not going to longcat reply to you, but I’m with you.

O&G has been my entire career, and the short time I took off from it  paid less than half my current wage (and that was also a “professional, high wage job”) The comments last night pretty much took me from listening hard  and maybe changing the way I vote, to lol I’m knocking on doors for the other side.  Which really sucks because the R’s are doing some disgusting shit right now. 

Feeding and providing for you family comes above all else. 

Edited September 5, 2019 by fattyflattie

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

11 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

@Eastwood, I’m not going to longcat reply to you, but I’m with you.

O&G has been my entire career, and the short time I took off from it  paid less than half my current wage (and that was also a “professional, high wage job”) The comments last night pretty much took me from listening hard  and maybe changing the way I vote, to lol I’m knocking on doors for the other side.  Which really sucks because the R’s are doing some disgusting shit right now. 

Feeding and providing for you family comes above all else. 

Finding a reasonable path forward to a lower GH emission country is exactly the thing to do. Radically changing a nations economic engine (and devastating 10's of millions of citizens lives) is not the way to do it.

[GSU&UT 1798]

4 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Finding a reasonable path forward to a lower GH emission country is exactly the thing to do. Radically changing a nations economic engine (and devastating 10's of millions of citizens lives) is not the way to do it.

So are we doing this thing again where we pretend that virtually all climate scientists aren't telling us we basically have no time to stop the worst effects of the ongoing warming? Slow rolling something out over 20+ years is not going to do anywhere near enough to stop massive damage to the earth.

Also, how many coal miner jobs are there? This states that there were only about 80,000 in 2018 and that number is going down regardless of any executive or legislative action.

https://www.wvpublic.org/post/coal-comeback-coal-new-low-after-two-years-under-trump

Edited September 5, 2019 by GSU&UT

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

6 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

So are we doing this thing again where we pretend that virtually all climate scientists aren't telling us we basically have no time to stop the worst effects of the ongoing warming? Slow rolling something out over 20+ years is not going to do anywhere near enough to stop massive damage to the earth.

Also, how many coal miner jobs are there? This states that there were only about 80,000 in 2018 and that number is going down regardless of any executive or legislative action.

https://www.wvpublic.org/post/coal-comeback-coal-new-low-after-two-years-under-trump

It's not just coal mining jobs at peril. You know that right ?

[fattyflattie 4636]

Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

It's not just coal mining jobs at peril. You know that right ?

Intentionally obtuse. 

[GSU&UT 1798]

3 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

It's not just coal mining jobs at peril. You know that right ?

So just completely ignoring the first part of my post then right? Sorry that radical change is needed, maybe if we didn't have decades of voting for presidents that pushed deregulation and actively denying the problem we wouldn't see candidates (correctly) taking an aggressive stance on this.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, GSU&UT said:

So just completely ignoring the first part of my post then right? Sorry that radical change is needed, maybe if we didn't have decades of voting for presidents that pushed deregulation and actively denying the problem we wouldn't see candidates (correctly) taking an aggressive stance on this.

I'm not ignoring anything. The change advocated in a 10 year period would catastrophic to our economy, and the we have only 10-20 years to save our planet scenario just isn't realistic.

[hpslugga 4044]

18 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

So are we doing this thing again where we pretend that virtually all climate scientists aren't telling us we basically have no time to stop the worst effects of the ongoing warming? Slow rolling something out over 20+ years is not going to do anywhere near enough to stop massive damage to the earth.

Also, how many coal miner jobs are there? This states that there were only about 80,000 in 2018 and that number is going down regardless of any executive or legislative action.

https://www.wvpublic.org/post/coal-comeback-coal-new-low-after-two-years-under-trump

Coal jobs are going to disappear whether the government blesses the industry or curses it. If they curse it, the industry is wiped out. If they bless it, they who own the mines will continue on their path to automating the shit out of the business. Either course results in humans losing out on coal jobs. It's nothing to strive for anymore, even if you totally ignore the environmental impact that it has. Working in coal now is like working in speakeasies or BetaMax tech support. It's easy to pander to that limited demographic for cheap votes in elections, but basing environmental policy on how they feel is like basing foreign relations policy with southeastern Africa around how the Dodos feel.

Edited September 5, 2019 by hpslugga

[GSU&UT 1798]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I'm not ignoring anything. The change advocated in a 10 year period would catastrophic to our economy, and the we have only 10-20 years to save our planet scenario just isn't realistic.

What's going to be catastrophic is having to spend on the order of trillions of dollars in repairs, building sea walls, people moving from the coast and being unable to sell their homes (and likely struggling to find work quickly), etc.

[hpslugga 4044]

2 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

The change advocated in a 10 year period would catastrophic to our economy

Short term, yes. Long term? Doing nothing would be suicide.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

What's going to be catastrophic is having to spend on the order of trillions of dollars in repairs, building sea walls, people moving from the coast and being unable to sell their homes (and likely struggling to find work quickly), etc.

IF that scenario is accurate it sure would be.  You really think we're going to change a globally sized issue like that with anything other than a complete and 100% world wide energy system change today  ?  You think China and India are going to curb their emissions ?  That's what it would take. A world wide cooperation of all nations first, second and third world.

The U.S. is not going to solve this issue by cutting its GH gases alone in your scenario.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

7 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

Short term, yes. Long term? Doing nothing would be suicide.

Just short term ?  I doubt it.  That kind of change would make the depression look like a mild October stock sell off week.   And again, this is not strictly a U.S. issue, and to solve what you claim is coming would require world wide cooperation of all the major players.

[DixonHur 11227]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Just short term ?  I doubt it.  That kind of change would make the depression look like a mild October stock sell off week.   And again, this is not strictly a U.S. issue, and to solve what you claim is coming would require world wide cooperation of all the major players.

The rest of the world is acting on climate change and green energy.  The US is the outlier among developed nations.

[GSU&UT 1798]

Holy fuck, what is this argument that China is just chugging along and ignoring climate change? If anything they're doing a HELL of a lot more than the US in investing in renewables, high speed rail, and nuclear energy (which yes the GND doesn't call for). And yes I can understand if you're skeptical of what they say publicly, but pointing the finger at someone else and saying "why should we make sacrifice when they aren't" is 5 year old logic.

If the US significantly curbed its emissions it's still going to have a huge impact on fighting the worst possible effects of climate change.

 

Edited September 5, 2019 by GSU&UT

[Eastwood 4394]

Just now, GSU&UT said:

So just completely ignoring the first part of my post then right? Sorry that radical change is needed, maybe if we didn't have decades of voting for presidents that pushed deregulation and actively denying the problem we wouldn't see candidates (correctly) taking an aggressive stance on this.

Ok, great, we need change. We are agreed. Move past the argument of "something needs to be done" because we are agreeing on it. Now, let's move on to how it can be done with as little damage as possible to those who are economically tied to the fossil fuel industry. Can we use all of the resources at our disposal to make that change without devastating the State of Texas? Because I've been listening intently over the last couple of months about this Green New Deal and there isn't much there to give me confidence that we can execute this without creating huge hardships for Texas at all levels. In fact, I'm starting to think that it hasn't been considered, at all. Billions in university endowments? Gone. The middle class in the Valley and border counties? Gone. The housing market in West Texas and Houston? Tanked. That's just a brief snapshot. And all of these issues are contagious, socially and economically. If we are to pass a Green New Deal, then the Texas middle class that will be affected needs to be made whole. Show me a plan where that can be executed effectively, and only then can I move forward.

[wildcat09 29258]

33 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

It's not just coal mining jobs at peril. You know that right ?

You old fucks are going to kill us all but yeah, we should care first and foremost about keeping those of you in those industries responsible for killing us all employed in said

[elfenix 34172]

34 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I'm not ignoring anything. The change advocated in a 10 year period would catastrophic to our economy, and the we have only 10-20 years to save our planet scenario just isn't realistic.

well we had 100 years to do it but a certain industry made sure that we made 0 progress and actually went backward in meaningful ways. 

 

even LBJ talked about it:

Quote

Carbon dioxide is being added to the earth's atmosphere by the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas at the rate of 6 billion tons a year. By the year 2000 there will be about 25 percent more carbon dioxide in our atmosphere than at present. Exhausts and other releases from automobiles contribute a major share to the generation of smog.

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-the-president-response-science-advisory-committee-report-pollution-air-soil-and

 

and the report that prompted the speech had a whole appendix on the effects of increased carbon dioxide. that was 1965!

 

Edited September 5, 2019 by elfenix

[GSU&UT 1798]

5 minutes ago, Eastwood said:

Ok, great, we need change. We are agreed. Move past the argument of "something needs to be done" because we are agreeing on it. Now, let's move on to how it can be done with as little damage as possible to those who are economically tied to the fossil fuel industry. Can we use all of the resources at our disposal to make that change without devastating the State of Texas? Because I've been listening intently over the last couple of months about this Green New Deal and there isn't much there to give me confidence that we can execute this without creating huge hardships for Texas at all levels. In fact, I'm starting to think that it hasn't been considered, at all. Billions in university endowments? Gone. The middle class in the Valley and border counties? Gone. The housing market in West Texas and Houston? Tanked. That's just a brief snapshot. And all of these issues are contagious, socially and economically. If we are to pass a Green New Deal, then the Texas middle class that will be affected needs to be made whole. Show me a plan where that can be executed effectively, and only then can I move forward.

No offense but you're acting as if O&G would be the only industry where people have had to make sacrifice. There are tons of us who have debt, a more shaky financial situation due to wage growth that hasn't come close to matching increasing profits, an inability therefore to get better housing. I'm sorry if I don't exactly feel upset if people in O&G may face an uncertain future, because they aren't the only ones.

The GND also calls for tons of these people to be able to take jobs that still would be in the energy sector. There would be plenty available, and yeah it may be a career change (which I've done twice now because of debt and forces outside of my control).

Edited September 5, 2019 by GSU&UT

[hpslugga 4044]

13 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

The rest of the world is acting on climate change and green energy.  The US is the outlier among developed nations.

I was just about to say, we are the only ones who are NOT cooperating.

[fattyflattie 4636]

3 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

I'm sorry if I don't exactly feel upset if people in O&G may face an uncertain future,

Then you can understand how we feel. Glad we understand each other. 

4 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

The GND also calls for tons of these people to be able to take jobs that still would be in the energy sector.

They aren’t going to pay. I don’t gaf if I work in O&G or windmills or whatever. I do gaf about how much money I make. 

[Eastwood 4394]

Just now, GSU&UT said:

No offense but you're acting as if O&G would be the only industry where people have had to make sacrifice. There are tons of us who have debt, a more shaky financial situation due to wage growth that hasn't come close to matching increasing profits, an inability therefore to get better housing. I'm sorry if I don't exactly feel upset if people in O&G may face an uncertain future, because they aren't the only ones.

That's true. There is a lot of instability out there. That is due to corporations taking advantage of trade deals, automation, and providing less and less while the executives rake in more and more. But growing wages and restoring economic equality is for a different bill. We are talking about the Green New Deal. And as someone in O&G, I am exercising my right to voice how this legislation will adversely affect me directly. I am attempting to share what I think is being overlooked in all of this. We can simultaneously pass a Green New Deal that protects the middle class and pass other bills that protect other segments of the middle class. A "welcome to the party, pal" attitude is misplaced. Especially when most people in O&G don't work directly for major oil companies and experience heavy turnover.

[wildcat09 29258]

2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Then you can understand how we feel. Glad we understand each other. 

They aren’t going to pay. I don’t gaf if I work in O&G or windmills or whatever. I do gaf about how much money I make. 

If our ability as a species to survive is less important to you than a pay cut then you're a gigantic piece of shit.

[GSU&UT 1798]

3 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Then you can understand how we feel. Glad we understand each other. 

They aren’t going to pay. I don’t gaf if I work in O&G or windmills or whatever. I do gaf about how much money I make. 

I have a financial stake in this too. I'm a software developer for a company in the energy sector who deals with installation and monitoring of generators at sites, 90% of which are diesel fuel. We're slowly trying to work towards "microgrid" sites that use solar to push energy to generators that run at a base load (when sunny) and backup battery power, but it's quite possible a quick shift my cause our company to cut me and the rest of the monitoring team. I'm willing to make a sacrifice because I want to see my daughter still enjoy this world as it more or less is now (some change is already irreversible), if I had to change careers again then fucking so be it because the alternative is going to mean death to millions of people in central america, the middle east, the indian subcontinent.

[fattyflattie 4636]

Lol. Ability to survive as a species as counties around the world burn mountains of tires gtfo.  Ever seen the well maintained and efficient vehicles most of south and Central America drive? What about Asia?  Yeah they are trying really hard to live green. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

This is why AOC and Bernie talk about a "just transition" and how it actually turns out to be more of a jobs bill than a climate bill. The climate is the simpler part (just stop putting carbon into the atmosphere).

A climate movement that only punished polluters would, as has been mentioned here, destroy communities. That's why Bernie's bill is $16T, because it includes a just transition for the workers who are going to be effected. We HAVE to guarantee these people gainful employment in the transition. Not only is it the right thing to do, it is vital for the health of our nation and economy.

[Eastwood 4394]

2 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

I have a financial stake in this too. I'm a software developer for a company in the energy sector who deals with installation and monitoring of generators at sites, 90% of which are diesel fuel. We're slowly trying to work towards "microgrid" sites that use solar to push energy to generators that run at a base load (when sunny) and backup battery power, but it's quite possible a quick shift my cause our company to cut me and the rest of the monitoring team. I'm willing to make a sacrifice because I want to see my daughter still enjoy this world as it more or less is now (some change is already irreversible), if I had to change careers again then fucking so be it because the alternative is going to mean death to millions of people in central america, the middle east, the indian subcontinent.

You're a software developer. You have a level of job mobility that most in the industry do not. Your pay is pretty even across the board. I'll do my specific job for any industry that needs me, but I have personal experience with the pay gap. I worked for wind farm companies for 4 years. The pay is half of what it was for O&G. If we truly are saving trillions while saving the future, then lets bring the pay up in the renewables sector for those who are transitioning to it.

[fattyflattie 4636]

3 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

I'm a software developer

That seems like a really good career choice, as there are lots of software needs.    I lay pipelines, and build/remove offshore production facilities.  Not a lot of options when those go away.  Add to that the type of pay that commands and you can see why many are concerned. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

I hate it when Nate Silver says things I agree with.

 

[wildcat09 29258]

Just now, GSU&UT said:

I have a financial stake in this too. I'm a software developer for a company in the energy sector who deals with installation and monitoring of generators at sites, 90% of which are diesel fuel. We're slowly trying to work towards "microgrid" sites that use solar to push energy to generators that run at a base load (when sunny) and backup battery power, but it's quite possible a quick shift my cause our company to cut me and the rest of the monitoring team. I'm willing to make a sacrifice because I want to see my daughter still enjoy this world as it more or less is now (some change is already irreversible), if I had to change careers again then fucking so be it because the alternative is going to mean death to millions of people in central america, the middle east, the indian subcontinent.

At the rate we're going we're on pace to see something like 4 degrees of warming and if we don't begin making huge improvements extremely quickly that only gets worse. We're not just talking flooding of coastal areas and stronger storms. We're talking famine, we're talking new pandemics, we're talking mass global migrations of people. Just look at how much something like one million Syrian refugees has destabilized Europe.  Imagine what a billion climate refugees will do.  If our primary concern is making sure that fattyflattie gets to keep earning his sweet paycheck he's got, billions will die. It's that simple.

[GSU&UT 1798]

4 minutes ago, Eastwood said:

You're a software developer. You have a level of job mobility that most in the industry do not. Your pay is pretty even across the board. I'll do my specific job for any industry that needs me, but I have personal experience with the pay gap. I worked for wind farm companies for 4 years. The pay is half of what it was for O&G. If we truly are saving trillions while saving the future, then lets bring the pay up in the renewables sector for those who are transitioning to it.

I dropped out of grad school with over 10,000 in debt and I had to work for a few years making not much more than the federal minimum wage (temp jobs then a low paying salary at the American Cancer Society and then a toxicology lab) before taking a risk and trying to become a software developer without incurring another several thousand dollars of debt in attending some coding bootcamp. I had to ask my parents to help pay my rent for a few months and I just finished paying off my student loans after having saved for several years. I have been desperate, I am aware of the pain, and I'm much more keenly aware of what's at stake if we don't make sacrifice.

Edited September 5, 2019 by GSU&UT

[tantric superman 4667]

12 hours ago, F250 said:

Booker is pretty damn likeable and makes a lot of good points. Why isn't this guy performing better in the polls?

 

He's a goddamn Stanford snot. 

(Fuck USC.)

[fattyflattie 4636]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

If our primary concern is making sure that fattyflattie gets to keep earning his sweet paycheck he's got, billions will die. It's that simple.

You let me worry about the paycheck, you worry about the fantasies of famine and global migration. 

[ryskey 447]

Every other discussion in this country is so polarized, so climate and energy might as well be too.

This is especially frustrating because it's one that should be led by experts, who are in turn informed by science and economics.  Instead, we have know-nothing morons on both extremes dictating how this very complicated, technical, nuanced topic is consumed by the public, which is 99% laymen.  How many people do you know who are actually qualified to have a strong opinion here?  I guess we can say that about any topic, but this might be the only one that concerns our viability as a species.

On one side, we have drooling troglodytes opposed to any kind of change from the status quo, regardless of merit.

On the other, we have people inventing fairy tales, then believing in them, followed by calling anyone who doesn't believe 100% in their imagined fantasy world a pox upon humanity.

The people who make up those poles consist of what, maybe 10% of the population?  I think even most laymen, if presented with a choice, would like a thoughtful course of action that won't either:

1. Cause runaway climate change, leading to a huge reduction in the human population.

2. Wreck the world economy, cause mass starvation, and lead to a huge reduction in the human population.

Our risk tolerance for either of those is 0.  1% is too high. 

There's too much money in politics, and we'll never fix that.  So using financial interests to re-define the battle lines (or make them disappear) is the only way to find a reasonable course of action.  The majors - Total, Shell, BP, and now even Exxon are going this direction, but without a lot of conviction or urgency.  Over the long run, they have more influence than some bombastic politician.  What can accelerate that evolution is to make green energy as or more profitable than hydrocarbons.  Not through taxes, subsidies, or picking winners and losers through legislation, but through innovation and technology.  Wind and solar are good at making a lot of energy, but not necessarily when we need it.  Whoever invents cheap, scale-able energy storage will be a trillionaire, but only those with country-sized balance sheets will be able to scale it and deploy it.  

I'm in oil and gas because the world needs oil and gas.  We will need it for decades to come.  But if we are still doing things this way in 50 years, then we will have failed miserably somewhere.  This is a century-long transition that needs profitable allocation of resources to be successful.  Incubation, public/private partnerships, but most importantly, profitability.  It's the only language humans collectively speak.

[Eastwood 4394]

Just now, GSU&UT said:

I dropped out of grad school with over 10,000 in debt and I had to work for a few years before taking a risk and trying to become a software developer without incurring another several thousand dollars of debt in attending some coding bootcamp. I had to ask my parents to help pay my rent for a few months and I just finished paying off my student loans after having saved for several years. I have been desperate, I am aware of the pain, and I'm much more keenly aware of what's at stake if we don't make sacrifice.

We can continue to commiserate. I'm $60k in the hole and counting until 2021. If you're still in Austin, we should grab a beer some time and catch up.

[bad_teammate 13132]

It's extremely depressing that we can spend trillions on tax cuts for the rich, but when it comes to someone wanting to keep his paycheck (even if high), we all go austerity-minded.

[GSU&UT 1798]

1 minute ago, Eastwood said:

We can continue to commiserate. I'm $60k in the hole and counting until 2021. If you're still in Austin, we should grab a beer some time and catch up.

If I make it back there I will, but I live in Georgia now closer to my parents and siblings since my wife wanted to be near one of families before we had a kid.

4 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

You let me worry about the paycheck, you worry about the fantasies of famine and global migration. 

These aren't fantasies, there is actual research that is having to be screamed at us now so that we'll stop trying to kick the can further down the road.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/08/climate/climate-change-food-supply.html

https://www.thenation.com/article/climate-change-media-humanitarian-crises/

And here talks about one study that is estimating thousands in the US alone could die during a catastrophic heat wave in the near future if emissions are barely curbed. India is already seeing more and more deaths from heat waves as each year has passed recently.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/climate-change-heat-waves-deaths-cities/

[elfenix 34172]

7 minutes ago, ryskey said:

Not through taxes, subsidies, or picking winners and losers through legislation, but through innovation and technology. 

the status quo is where it is because we've spent a century of picking winners and losers through taxes and subsidies.  now that we need to use those tools to pick a different set of winners and losers before we're all made into losers, we should instead abandon them?  what sense does that make?

[B00M 6280]

8 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

We're talking famine, we're talking new pandemics, we're talking mass global migrations of people. Just look at how much something like one million Syrian refugees has destabilized Europe.  Imagine what a billion climate refugees will do.

This is a little off-topic so I will hang up and listen to avoid derailing the thread... It seems incongruent that much of the left thinks this sort of scenario is coming in 10 years but simultaneously wants to drastically reduce military spending, eliminate private gun ownership, and disarm the police. 

It bums me out that Warren opposes nuclear power... At least Pete supports it. 

 

[wildcat09 29258]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It's extremely depressing that we can spend trillions on tax cuts for the rich, but when it comes to someone wanting to keep his paycheck (even if high), we all go austerity-minded.

I'm all for seizing all assets and condemning to the gulags every energy company executive who knew about the harm they were causing and not only didn't give a shit but invested heavily in propaganda that has greatly exacerbated the damage. I'd be happy for us to pay employees in transitional industries significantly better. But for anyone in O&G going "well fuck changing course, I'm going to keep voting Republican because the only thing that matters is how much I get paid," well fuck them.   

[wildcat09 29258]

2 minutes ago, B00M said:

This is a little off-topic so I will hang up and listen to avoid derailing the thread... It seems incongruent that much of the left thinks this sort of scenario is coming in 10 years but simultaneously wants to drastically reduce military spending, eliminate private gun ownership, and disarm the police. 

It bums me out that Warren opposes nuclear power... At least Pete supports it. 

 

Who said ten years?

[bad_teammate 13132]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

I'm all for seizing all assets and condemning to the gulags every energy company executive who knew about the harm they were causing and not only didn't give a shit but invested heavily in propaganda that has greatly exacerbated the damage. I'd be happy for us to pay employees in transitional industries significantly better. But for anyone in O&G going "well fuck changing course, I'm going to keep voting Republican because the only thing that matters is how much I get paid," well fuck them.   

Win without the CHUDs, but still let them enjoy the better future we are building.

[ryskey 447]

1 minute ago, elfenix said:

the status quo is where it is because we've spent a century of picking winners and losers through taxes and subsidies.  now that we need to use those tools to pick a different set of winners and losers before we're all made into losers, we should instead abandon them?  what sense does that make?

I think you have causality reversed.  Those taxes and subsidies followed what was inherently profitable, because those who made the rules were already rich.  Investment will follow where the returns are.  That's an organic, secular tailwind for exponential growth.  Once mature, the taxes and subsidies will follow.

Perpetually subsidizing an unprofitable venture is how a society becomes poor.  An outright ban on hydrocarbons, or massive, abrupt, tax-funded subsidies on an imperfect, un-scale-able, immature renewable energy sector (ast it stands right now) is a strategy that will lead to an outcome just as bad as runaway climate change.  

[elfenix 34172]

2 minutes ago, ryskey said:

I think you have causality reversed. 

not that it matters.  and, of course, the biggest subsidy has been baked in from the get-go, so you're factually wrong as well.

[ryskey 447]

4 minutes ago, ryskey said:

An outright ban on hydrocarbons, or massive, abrupt, tax-funded subsidies on an imperfect, un-scale-able, immature renewable energy sector (ast it stands right now) is a strategy that will lead to an outcome just as bad as runaway climate change.  

Quoting myself to clarify.  As it stands right now, there is no solution or viable path forward in which renewable energy + nuclear can supply 100% of the world's energy needs within the next couple decades without causing catastrophic economic damage.  Obviously, renewables are mature enough to continue growing market share right now, and that's a good thing.  

[fattyflattie 4636]

16 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

But for anyone in O&G going "well fuck changing course, I'm going to keep voting Republican because the only thing that matters is how much I get paid," well fuck them.   

That’s not nice. 

[zork 629]

23 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Who said ten years?

 

[ryskey 447]

5 minutes ago, elfenix said:

not that it matters.  and, of course, the biggest subsidy has been baked in from the get-go, so you're factually wrong as well.

Yes, internalizing the externalized full-cycle costs.  That's a worthy goal.  How do you do that in a way that won't lead to catastrophic economic collapse?

Possible solution: Announce a revenue-neutral carbon tax that will escalate incrementally over the next 30 years.  Revenue raised reduces everyone's income taxes.  That sends a long-term price signal to the world, re-directing investment, punishes inefficiency, and sets a course that is thermodynamically best for our species, which is therefore the most beneficial from an evolutionary standpoint.