with global warming, is the cure worse than the disease?

Author: n8nrgim

Posts

Total: 28
Topic's author
#1
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 953
3
2
4
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
4

i acknowledge as everyone should, that climate change is man made and making the globe too warm. just look at the coral reefs. they've been thriving for millions of years, but suddenly in the industrial era, it's become too hot for them. they probably would have adapted if it wasn't for man's sudden shocking input.  plus the overwhelming consensus of scientists on global warming is significant. 

but what is the solution to this? cutting back on carbon and using alt energy. i acknowledge using alt energy is good, but to the extent that we're cutting back on emissions, what's the consequences? dampened economic activity, and on the margins people can't survive. of course with climate change, there's droughts and unstable weather patterns. but which is worse?

as of now, we're not doing all we can to stop climate change, so the cure doesn't seem so bad. but what if we did do what it takes to lessen climate change significantly? it could be a disaster, couldn't it... where the cure is worse than the disease? 

climate change is a disaster, but i think we ultimately will be able to adapt. 
#2
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,094
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@n8nrgim
What you point out here is similar to my thoughts posted in another thread on this subject:

“The severity seems to be what is most difficult to predict. My issues with mitigation strategies are:

1. Be careful that the mitigation measures are worthwhile, and that they don’t end up being as consequential as the problem itself.
2. The human race has shown itself much more adept at adaptation rather than prevention.
3. The globe basically shut down for over a year, and it barely made a dent in mitigating climate change. If that didn’t do much, what will?”

Topic's author
#3
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 953
3
2
4
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
4
-->
@cristo71
excellent points
#4
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,909
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@n8nrgim
1. Be careful that the mitigation measures are worthwhile, and that they don’t end up being as consequential as the problem itself.
Think of it like a heavy addiction to heroin, if heroin also had the beneficial effects of caffeine. Obviously you can’t quit outright, but things will keep degrading if you keep on using.

2. The human race has shown itself much more adept at adaptation rather than prevention.
A synonym for adapt is transition.

3. The globe basically shut down for over a year, and it barely made a dent in mitigating climate change. If that didn’t do much, what will?”
From what i’ve seen it’s going to take more than 1000 years for carbon particulates to come back down to preindustrial levels — If the world is netzero by 2100. For every 10 years humans push carbon into the atmosphere, it takes exponentially longer for Earth to absorb it. 
#5
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 269
Posts: 7,585
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Its not even a debate if global warming is caused by humans. Of course, some people only know when it hits them in head.
#6
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@n8nrgim
Doing nothing is criminal 
#7
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
the consequences of trying to slow emissions will be reduced growth. That will cut into profit margins for the wealthy. It will slow the economy. But that's pretty much it. And given that this requires us to push hard into new technologies, it could even increase economic growth as we ditch old, inefficient technology. 

The consequences of global warming we can't know entirely for certain. But even the things we are seeing now are bad. There are record setting wildfires year after year. I have family in an area that has had flooding repeatedly in the last few years in an area where flooding is uncommon. And the degree of flooding was extremely rare. There are large chunks of the US that are slowly becoming uninhabitable because insurance companies are more and more hesitant to insure houses there since it is extremely likely they will be damaged by natural disasters. 

The costs of global warming are going to be incalculable. 
Topic's author
#8
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 953
3
2
4
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
4
-->
@HistoryBuff
you say it affects the wealthy. what about the poor? if there's limits on who can drive gas cars, that affects poor people the most. if there's limits at all, it can affect poor people who can't use fossil fuels. 

i'm not saying we should do nothing, but it needs to be well crafted policies. 

we should double down on alt energy, and maybe figure out how to reduce existing or prevent future carbon with technology, but i suppose i'm skeptical about limits on emissions. i dont know what the right policy would be, so that it doesn't affect poor people. 
#9
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,966
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@cristo71
Topic's author
#10
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 953
3
2
4
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
4
Increase in prices from regulation mostly affects the poor
#11
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,278
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@n8nrgim
Are we not adapting.

Isn't taking measures to reverse global trends, adapting.

Doing nothing would be not adapting.


Ultimately the question is, will Planet earth's ecosystem survive.

Finance and living standards are human frippery in comparison.


Perhaps the best solution, would be a large scale and rapid reduction in human activity.
#12
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@n8nrgim
you say it affects the wealthy. what about the poor? if there's limits on who can drive gas cars, that affects poor people the most.
we are already replacing internal combustion engines with electric vehicles. There are some cheap options now for these, but they get cheaper every year.

i'm not saying we should do nothing, but it needs to be well crafted policies. 
this is fair. It is certainly possible for idiots to ignore suggestions of what would be useful and just try to ram through destructive, useless nonsense. 

we should double down on alt energy, and maybe figure out how to reduce existing or prevent future carbon with technology, but i suppose i'm skeptical about limits on emissions. i dont know what the right policy would be, so that it doesn't affect poor people. 
agreed. Solar energy is already the cheapest form of energy on the planet. We need more investment in this, and other forms of renewable energy. We also need investment in energy storage. One of the handicaps of many renewable energies is they aren't entirely consistent. If you have a coal power plant you can produce the exact amount of energy you want, whenever you want. Solar doesn't work that way. So we need to be able to produce lots of energy while the sun is shining, store it, and release it when it's needed. 
#13
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,124
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@n8nrgim
Increase in prices from regulation mostly affects the poor
Increase in prices from anything mostly effects the poor

#14
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,966
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgim
Which regulation do you think hurts the poor the most?
Topic's author
#15
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 953
3
2
4
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
if there are any regulations that limit emissions that poor people cause, that's bad for them. 
#16
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,966
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgim
There's a ton of regulations that double and sometimes triple the energy bills of poor people for electricity and gas.
#17
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
There's a ton of regulations that double and sometimes triple the energy bills of poor people for electricity and gas.
what regulation would that be, exactly. I'm guessing it's regulation that prevents catastrophic failure or something. 

#18
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,966
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
I'm guessing it's regulation that prevents catastrophic failure or something. 
That's the justification for every regulation, whether it's necessary or not. The consumers are not allowed to make the risk assessments.

Alaska is full of this scenario where people in DC dictate how Alaskans can use their own land that they live on.

Alaskans are so furious about being shackled by the tyranny of a majority of "eco conscious warriors" in California who have never set one foot on Alaskan soil, much less spent a single day in the environment they think they are "saving."
#19
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
still waiting for you to name a regulation that has tripled the cost of energy...

Alaskans are so furious about being shackled by the tyranny of a majority of "eco conscious warriors" in California who have never set one foot on Alaskan soil, much less spent a single day in the environment they think they are "saving."
uh huh. Basically, your argument is that Alaska should be free to make huge profits and then make everyone pay the costs. Pumping and burning huge amounts of fossil fuels affects Californians just as much as it affects Alaskans. 
#20
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,966
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Athias
 Pumping and burning huge amounts of fossil fuels affects Californians just as much as it affects Alaskans. 
California is free to not buy any Alaskan oil. And likewise, Alaska should not dictate what industries California should be allowed to husband.

#21
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
California is free to not buy any Alaskan oil.
the idea is that no one should be buying oil. Whether it is from alaska or otherwise. And funding new oil development only encourages more delays in switching off of oil and gas. And the longer we take to transition, the more damage will be done and the more people will die. The money that can be made on oil today is pennies compared the damage a shifting climate can cause. 

And likewise, Alaska should not dictate what industries California should be allowed to husband.
you don't get the whole "nation" thing do you? Federal policy is for the whole country, not this state or that. 

#22
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,966
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
The money that can be made on oil today is pennies compared the damage a shifting climate can cause. 
There is also the cost of immediate damage from a lack of energy, such as poor people dying in the summer from brownouts and in the winter because poor people cant afford to heat the house.
#23
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
There is also the cost of immediate damage from a lack of energy, such as poor people dying in the summer from brownouts
When was the last time the US had a brown out from lack of energy? from infrastructure allowed to decay until it can't handle the load? sure. But a complete lack of oil and gas? I would need a citation for that. 

and in the winter because poor people cant afford to heat the house.
this sounds like an excellent argument for massive investment in greener energy, not for pumping more poison into the air. 
#24
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,966
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff

#25
Redpilled
Redpilled's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 38
0
0
4
Redpilled's avatar
Redpilled
0
0
4
-->
@HistoryBuff
facts 

#26
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
this source talks about brownouts caused by insufficient investment in infrastructure and or/natural disasters. it is not a lack of power. 

this one actually does talk about brownouts caused by insufficient power. Basically the power demand in california doubled due to record heat waves. But it's not really about green energy. Even if they used no green energy at all, it still would have happened. Most grids are not equipped to double normal energy output. Pumping more oil out of the ground would not change this. 
#27
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,966
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
this sounds like an excellent argument for massive investment in greener energy,
Which we have been doing, to the tune of trillions of dollars in subsidies, but if you read my links, it doesn't stop the brownouts for hours of peak usage because the sun and wind doesn't care about your feelings. And it only takes a few hours to die from hypothermia or heat stroke.
#28
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Which we have been doing, to the tune of trillions of dollars in subsidies, but if you read my links, it doesn't stop the brownouts for hours of peak usage because the sun and wind doesn't care about your feelings.
no, that is where batteries and interconnected grids come in. With batteries you can store the excess energy and then release it during peak hours. Some basic ones are already very useful (in the right kind of area). A gravity battery using water is a fairly simple and effective one. Albeit it does require the right kind of geography to work well. 

With interconnected grids, you can better prioritize power. IE peak power production in England isn't the same as peak power production in say, turkey. Their peak consumption hours are different as well. So with you can take excess energy in one place and move it to somewhere else that needs it. That way you get around the peak production/consumption issue with solar. This would take lots of investment though.