Exxon Mobile and climate change

[Cow Poke]

Binga Dinga!

I've taught environmental studies courses with the tact of addressing the climate change issue with positive suggestions that could (possibly) mitigate CC (to what degree -- as it were -- I have no idea).

It's SO easy to teach students ideas that are necessary in the long run anyway. But they and I bristle at the gloom 'n doom approach, what Cowboy calls the "repent or burn in hell" rhetoric.

And the ALARMIST approach, like most of the Left's nonsense, is clearly incendiary spew to effect political divisiveness. Democrats smart, Republicans dumb.

The epistemology is so much like the Fundy Atheists referring to themselves as "Brights" and using the strawman of Fundy Christianity and Islam to push a false dichotomy.

I used to cringe when a loudmouth agnostic and VERY politically liberal professor bellowing in the lecture hall about "two minute warnings."

Ugh. All the most leftist students tuned him out, and I had to spend most of the discussion sessions presenting a balance of facts which to an uninformed biased observer made me sound like the most dreaded of all heretics, the DENIALIST!

I amen'd this, if not for content, then for style.

[Cow Poke]

Thanks. I think that's a pretty common experience. Lots of people don't know what the solutions are, but mistrust the people who are advocating that solutions need to be put into effect, so they assume the solutions must be bad. Layered on top of that is the fact that we've been spectacularly bad at solving societal-level problems without government involvement. It gets pretty easy for someone who sees things from that perspective to assume all solutions must be bad.

I think the reality is that a lot of different solutions have been suggested and/or undergone trials, and there are probably some on the list that most people would find appealing (though not the same ones for everybody, naturally). But it's a long list, most of the entries on it require some explaining and details, and no single entry on it will solve the entire problem on its own - we need to choose multiple solutions at once.

So it's a bit of work to wade through and (justifiably) most people think they have better things to do with their time.

So, how bout this --- what the CC proponents want (at least in our country) seems to be government action, hence, trying to force legislation through congress or, as is being reported, through executive order. In the former, it's necessary to convince a majority of the people (or their representatives) that something needs to be done, and that government is "he" who needs to do it.

I think that's the problem - and what I was really trying to say in my "who cares" thread on climate change. If I'm not already fully committed that climate change is real, AND that it is man cause, AND that there is anything that can actually be done to reverse it.... let's say we get that far... I still need to be convinced that our government is the solution.

[rogue06]

I amen'd this, if not for content, then for style.

You "did a CP" again didn't you?

[Cow Poke]

You did a CP again didn't you?

Not that time, no.

[TheLurch]

I amen'd this, if not for content, then for style.

I'd suggest language like that is just as unlikely to bring about cooperation with his opponents as the language he's complaining about.

[Cow Poke]

I'd suggest language like that is just as unlikely to bring about cooperation with his opponents as the language he's complaining about.

Which was the reason for my... um... "qualified" amen.... I agree with some of the points, but not all... I particularly liked the "repent or burn in hell" analogy, which I have also used. Kinda. Sorta.

[TheLurch]

So, how bout this --- what the CC proponents want (at least in our country) seems to be government action, hence, trying to force legislation through congress or, as is being reported, through executive order. In the former, it's necessary to convince a majority of the people (or their representatives) that something needs to be done, and that government is "he" who needs to do it.

Well, i can't speak for everyone, but all i care about is that action gets taken. As things now stand, nothing will be done, because the atmosphere is treated as a free dumping ground for CO2 - there's no cost to anyone for using it that way, even though there will be long-term costs shared by all of humanity. (In economics, this sort of thing is called an externality.) That somehow needs to change. It's a distortion of the market that ensures that people and industries get to dispose of their waste for free in a way that causes costs for others.

How this gets addressed I doesn't really matter to me. I don't care so much about the method (within reason) - i care about the outcomes. And yes, i'd rather have it set up so that the majority of citizens in the US were on board. Things simply work better that way.

(Polls suggest the majority already is, so that task may already be done.)

I think that's the problem - and what I was really trying to say in my "who cares" thread on climate change. If I'm not already fully committed that climate change is real, AND that it is man cause, AND that there is anything that can actually be done to reverse it.... let's say we get that far... I still need to be convinced that our government is the solution.

Ok, there's two options for you that I can see realistically. One is to look for solutions that don't involve the government. There may be some out there, but i think even the libertarian organizations that are taking things seriously feel that some level of government intervention is necessary to address the externalities issue i mentioned above. But I could be missing something.

The second thing is to look into government actions that you feel will be sufficiently minimal. Only you can really define what those are. Did you find things like the lightbulb efficiency standards to be overly intrusive? How about the regulations that handled acid rain? (These are not things i am looking for answers to, just things you might want to consider if you decide to answer the over all question.)

[oxmixmudd]

Well, i can't speak for everyone, but all i care about is that action gets taken. As things now stand, nothing will be done, because the atmosphere is treated as a free dumping ground for CO2 - there's no cost to anyone for using it that way, even though there will be long-term costs shared by all of humanity. (In economics, this sort of thing is called an externality.) That somehow needs to change. It's a distortion of the market that ensures that people and industries get to dispose of their waste for free in a way that causes costs for others.

How this gets addressed I doesn't really matter to me. I don't care so much about the method (within reason) - i care about the outcomes. And yes, i'd rather have it set up so that the majority of citizens in the US were on board. Things simply work better that way.

(Polls suggest the majority already is, so that task may already be done.)


Ok, there's two options for you that I can see realistically. One is to look for solutions that don't involve the government. There may be some out there, but i think even the libertarian organizations that are taking things seriously feel that some level of government intervention is necessary to address the externalities issue i mentioned above. But I could be missing something.

The second thing is to look into government actions that you feel will be sufficiently minimal. Only you can really define what those are. Did you find things like the lightbulb efficiency standards to be overly intrusive? How about the regulations that handled acid rain? (These are not things i am looking for answers to, just things you might want to consider if you decide to answer the over all question.)

One of the big problems with 'doing something about it' is you can't just be stupid. The reason this planet can support the billions it does is because we can farm thousands of acres with a few people and a bunch of oil burning machines. There aren't too many practical battery powered tractors out there (or trucks, or cargo ships, or airplanes). So you can't just turn that oil spigot off without destroying our civilization. We can make a dent if we get going, but we can't be driven by the extreme POV on either side. The Al Gore crowd wants us to think if we don't stop using oil in he extreme we destroy the planet. But I'm convinced the human cost would be far greater without oil that it will be with it - even if the world warms several degrees before we get a handle on things.

Jim

[Cow Poke]

One of the big problems with 'doing something about it' is you can't just be stupid. The reason this planet can support the billions it does is because we can farm thousands of acres with a few people and a bunch of oil burning machines. There aren't too many practical battery powered tractors out there (or trucks, or cargo ships, or airplanes). So you can't just turn that oil spigot off without destroying our civilization. We can make a dent if we get going, but we can't be driven by the extreme POV on either side. The Al Gore crowd wants us to think if we don't stop using oil in he extreme we destroy the planet. But I'm convinced the human cost would be far greater without oil that it will be with it - even if the world warms several degrees before we get a handle on things.

Jim

And I think that the hypocrisy of the Al Gore crowd was a factor, too - shaming everybody else about their carbon footprint, but still flying the jets and burning the lights on the homefront.

Bloomberg Business

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions, issued a press release late Monday:

Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

[TheLurch]

One of the big problems with 'doing something about it' is you can't just be stupid. The reason this planet can support the billions it does is because we can farm thousands of acres with a few people and a bunch of oil burning machines. There aren't too many practical battery powered tractors out there (or trucks, or cargo ships, or airplanes). So you can't just turn that oil spigot off without destroying our civilization. We can make a dent if we get going, but we can't be driven by the extreme POV on either side. The Al Gore crowd wants us to think if we don't stop using oil in he extreme we destroy the planet. But I'm convinced the human cost would be far greater without oil that it will be with it - even if the world warms several degrees before we get a handle on things.

Jim

Nobody's suggesting we just turn the oil spigot off - not even Al Gore as far as i know. (If i'm wrong on that, i'd love to see a quote demonstrating it.) But currently, the global subsidies for oil alone are something like 10x the subsidies the world provides to renewable energy. Simply reversing that would represent significant progress, and probably accelerate the innovation in transportation that we're already seeing.

I think one of the problems with arguments over climate change in general is that too much time is spent fighting straw men. There are real issues and hard problems to solve. It doesn't do anybody any good to get bogged down in arguing about non-solutions that nobody's advocating.

EDITED TO ADD: Anything involving Al Gore is pretty much a pointless argument. He uses a lot of energy, but buys renewables and carbon offsets. What you think about that probably says more about you than it does about his choices. All it does is distract from the discussions we should be having.

[klaus54]

I'd suggest language like that is just as unlikely to bring about cooperation with his opponents as the language he's complaining about.

Ahem..., why?

Is it not ok to express anger and disappointment with those alarmists who use the fear factor to scare scientifically illiterate hoi poloi without offering a whit of practical solution?

Apparently it went your head that I've actually TAUGHT this stuff, taking into the account the bigger picture of how CC fits in with equally or even more important aspects of human existence.

BTW, exactly WHAT did I say that was so offensive?

[klaus54]

Nobody's suggesting we just turn the oil spigot off - not even Al Gore as far as i know. (If i'm wrong on that, i'd love to see a quote demonstrating it.) But currently, the global subsidies for oil alone are something like 10x the subsidies the world provides to renewable energy. Simply reversing that would represent significant progress, and probably accelerate the innovation in transportation that we're already seeing.

I think one of the problems with arguments over climate change in general is that too much time is spent fighting straw men. There are real issues and hard problems to solve. It doesn't do anybody any good to get bogged down in arguing about non-solutions that nobody's advocating.

EDITED TO ADD: Anything involving Al Gore is pretty much a pointless argument. He uses a lot of energy, but buys renewables and carbon offsets. What you think about that probably says more about you than it does about his choices. All it does is distract from the discussions we should be having.

That's certainly the impression that CC alarmists give.

Go up to a propagandized scientifically-low-information (Save duh Erfff!) college kid and ask what they think of fossil fuels.

No, I don't have charts, graphs, or a published article to which to refer.

[Edited: Since the developed world is so heavily dependent on FF for the decade+ timeframe, those subsidies are keeping the cost of living down. Removing the subsidies now would severely impact the working poor. It's always a false dichotomy, one side of the issue, that alarmists or denialists tend to take.

Oh, and it really warms my heart that Al Gore can afford those offsets. He'd be a better role model if he present a conservation lifestyle in his public persona. It's kinda of analogous to a rich person paying a peon to take his place in the military.]

[TheLurch]

Ahem..., why?

Is it not ok to express anger and disappointment with those alarmists who use the fear factor to scare scientifically illiterate hoi poloi without offering a whit of practical solution?

Is it ok if others express disappointment with those denialists that scare the scientifically illiterate without offering a whit of a practical solution?

See, i could use that sort of language too, if i felt it had any value. It doesn't.

BTW, exactly WHAT did I say that was so offensive?

"And the ALARMIST approach, like most of the Left's nonsense, is clearly incendiary spew to effect political divisiveness."

Or look at your very next post:

That's certainly the impression that CC alarmists give.

Combined, the two have name calling, labelling, accusations of dishonesty and bad motives. Plus a distinct disinterest in reality, because why focus on that when you can talk about your impression of reality.

Do you honestly not see how that comes across? Or do are you just honestly uninterested in building understanding and cooperation with people who might not agree with you.

[oxmixmudd]

Nobody's suggesting we just turn the oil spigot off - not even Al Gore as far as i know. (If i'm wrong on that, i'd love to see a quote demonstrating it.) But currently, the global subsidies for oil alone are something like 10x the subsidies the world provides to renewable energy. Simply reversing that would represent significant progress, and probably accelerate the innovation in transportation that we're already seeing.

I think one of the problems with arguments over climate change in general is that too much time is spent fighting straw men. There are real issues and hard problems to solve. It doesn't do anybody any good to get bogged down in arguing about non-solutions that nobody's advocating.

EDITED TO ADD: Anything involving Al Gore is pretty much a pointless argument. He uses a lot of energy, but buys renewables and carbon offsets. What you think about that probably says more about you than it does about his choices. All it does is distract from the discussions we should be having.

"Turning off the spigot" was not meant to be taken literally. And I should realize that this debate probably isn't one where a person can use hyperbole in a good natured and expect others to understand the intent. My bad.

But it is true that reducing our use of hydrocarbons sufficiently to make a real effect on the current trend up in Atmospheric CO2 would be more than civilization could bear at this point in time. That is the point. We NEED to push back, I agree. we NEED to encourage alternate energy development. But the energy density in oil is very hard to replicate in other forms. And the infrastructure has to be developed. And the natural resources (rare earths for magnets, lithium for batteries) IIRC are not really available in the quantities we need world wide:

http://futureofenergy.web.unc.edu/20...-of-renewbles/

The extremes push way to hard or way to little. We need voices for change that aren't on the edges.

Jim

[TheLurch]

But it is true that reducing our use of hydrocarbons sufficiently to make a real effect on the current trend up in Atmospheric CO2 would be more than civilization could bear at this point in time. That is the point.

I'm not convinced it is true. The US economy has continued growing (though not as fast as we'd like, and without the benefits being distributed as broadly as would be helpful) even as carbon emissions have dropped to levels not seen since the 1990s. Sweden decoupled carbon emissions (which have stayed flat) from economic growth back in the 90s.

There are reasons these countries could do so that won't apply everywhere. And some countries (China, for examples) would have further to go to get to flat emissions, which is why they're targeting that for 15 years from now. So, i'm not trying to claim that any of this would be simple or easy. But i don't entirely agree with the "more than civilization can bear" phrasing. And flat emissions would be a major step towards addressing the problem.