I recently had a digital conversation with an old friend on what needs to be done about climate change. He is decidedly against regulations. A while ago, he described his views as mostly Libertarian, which is against regulations and much more for a free capitalist market without stringent rules. While you may see the differences in points of view, I hope you will also see the similarities. I don't know if my friend is sold on climate change. He never clarified that. However, I think it is safe to say he cares about the environment and doesn't want to see it changed in any dramatic way. This conversation showed me that we must learn to focus on what we agree upon and not shout so much what we disagree upon. Enjoy!
My friend: Environmentalists are going about making the appropriate changes the wrong way Richard. If you truly care about "climate change" then energy creation, storage, and distribution need to be at the very top of your list as apposed to regulation (control) that ultimately accomplishes nothing (and is sometimes counterproductive). Sadly most "environmentalists" don't have a clue.
Me: It actually needs to be a balanced effort. You cannot just expect companies to do this on their own. They wouldn't have even come this far if it wasn't for regulations that were put into place 40 years ago. Environmentalists do have a clue. The facts show us that we are increasing emissions of greenhouse gases. We cannot solely rely on alternative energies finally being the major energy source 10 years down the road. We must regulate emissions output until we get to that point. It must be a two-pronged effort.
My friend:
My friend: Environmentalists are going about making the appropriate changes the wrong way Richard. If you truly care about "climate change" then energy creation, storage, and distribution need to be at the very top of your list as apposed to regulation (control) that ultimately accomplishes nothing (and is sometimes counterproductive). Sadly most "environmentalists" don't have a clue.
Me: It actually needs to be a balanced effort. You cannot just expect companies to do this on their own. They wouldn't have even come this far if it wasn't for regulations that were put into place 40 years ago. Environmentalists do have a clue. The facts show us that we are increasing emissions of greenhouse gases. We cannot solely rely on alternative energies finally being the major energy source 10 years down the road. We must regulate emissions output until we get to that point. It must be a two-pronged effort.
My friend:
Emissions
are already regulated almost to the point of not only diminishing
returns but counterproductive results. New technology and science is the
ONLY thing that will solve our problems, we simply cannot make the
needed gains through saying "no no no no no" over and over again. I'm not saying that regulations haven't helped in the past but rather
that we've reached the point where new technology is needed to go
further.
I have a hard time believing that greenhouse gas emissions are increasing in the U.S.. The math doesn't add up. Increased efficiency in automobiles, reduced demand and consumption of fuel and increasing use of alternative energies all points to the U.S. not only curbing it's emissions but reducing the annual production. If you want to really cut back on a serious source of "pollution" then start with coal power plants. China makes a new one every week (and they aren't close to clean). We have almost 1500 coal power plants in operation today, many of which are extremely old and produce serious amounts of emissions compared with newer plants.
Only way to replace them is with Nuclear but so called environmentalists are against Nuclear. Once again, the "no no no no" mentality prevails and instead of moving from a severely flawed system to one with much smaller flaws we make no progress. When it comes down to it the "green" movement has very few answers, if any, and yet wants to dictate what the masses do without a clear view of a better future.
When it comes down to it I think we all want the same things, I spend more time outdoors than the vast majority of so called environmentalists and I'd be willing to bet live a much "greener" lifestyle but I don't go around trying to force others to live the way I do. When environmentalists bring answers to the table and a clear, scientifically backed and accurate view of how we make true measurable progress the masses WILL listen, until then the green movement is it's own worse enemy.
I have a hard time believing that greenhouse gas emissions are increasing in the U.S.. The math doesn't add up. Increased efficiency in automobiles, reduced demand and consumption of fuel and increasing use of alternative energies all points to the U.S. not only curbing it's emissions but reducing the annual production. If you want to really cut back on a serious source of "pollution" then start with coal power plants. China makes a new one every week (and they aren't close to clean). We have almost 1500 coal power plants in operation today, many of which are extremely old and produce serious amounts of emissions compared with newer plants.
Only way to replace them is with Nuclear but so called environmentalists are against Nuclear. Once again, the "no no no no" mentality prevails and instead of moving from a severely flawed system to one with much smaller flaws we make no progress. When it comes down to it the "green" movement has very few answers, if any, and yet wants to dictate what the masses do without a clear view of a better future.
When it comes down to it I think we all want the same things, I spend more time outdoors than the vast majority of so called environmentalists and I'd be willing to bet live a much "greener" lifestyle but I don't go around trying to force others to live the way I do. When environmentalists bring answers to the table and a clear, scientifically backed and accurate view of how we make true measurable progress the masses WILL listen, until then the green movement is it's own worse enemy.
Me: In your list you provide many
things we can both agree on. China has already surpassed the U.S. in
emissions and I think we see eye to eye on the fact that they have yet
to make those emissions "cleaner". I also agree with you about technology. Technology is making radical advances every year.
One such new technology that has been in the works is in nuclear energy. It is not well known, but several scientists, including the leading Russian scientist on cold fusion, have developed a way to use nuclear waste (spent uranium rods) as a form of energy. It is called Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Nuclear Energy. The reaction occurs in such a way that a meltdown is virtually done away with. We have enough nuclear waste that we could power the entire world for 50,000 years if no new nuclear waste were produced after today. We should be investing whole heartedly into that type of technological energy production and continue to research its potential.
You seem to divorce environmentalism from science. While there are those who don’t take a realistic approach to caring for the environment, those that I write about every day, and who are working behind the scenes are generally scientists who know the data and those groups who make sure that science is the over-riding principle for their calls to action. I believe these environmentalists have already brought clear answers and solutions to the table. One problem is that no one seems to be listening because there are heavy financial backers from the fossil fuel industry whose sole interest is to keep the profits coming and they do not want to see any policy change.
We need politicians to listen to the science, not the corporatist. The evidence gathered in 2010 showed that U.S. emissions did rise, despite the recession (or weak recovery whichever you prefer). Standards are high, but they could be higher. There are still plenty of cars that barely make 20 mpg, when 50 years ago Shell Oil proved you could get over 100 mpg in a regular engine. That is a lot more fuel efficient and would curb emissions drastically. Yet, I do not know of any mass produced vehicle that gets that kind of mileage.
I laugh at the whole idea of clean coal because coal in itself is a very dirty item. Technology can “scrub” out a wide array of pollutants and harmful greenhouse gases, but until science perfects carbon sequestration and power plants are willing to invest in them, coal continues to be dirty. Therefore, scientists have not only proposed higher emissions standards based on current technology, but they are urging the government to move completely away from coal and other fossil fuel energies. It takes time, and we know that many of the green technologies are not quite up to powering an entire nation. However, that gap will not be there for long and soon it will be quite easy to make the jump. Solar, wind, and geothermal energies are ready to make the leap into mass energy production.
We need politicians who look into the common good, not the better interests of fossil fuels. Neither a Republican majority nor a Democratic majority have shown that sort of leadership. I am no economist, so I don’t know everything that is involved in keeping a stable economy during a shift in the type of energy we consume. However, I’m also not blind, and I know that the fossil fuel lobby is throwing a heck of a lot of money at preventing these greener technologies from getting the same investment and advantages that they have had throughout the years. The playing field needs to be equalized and the referees need to stop being bought off.
I realize that we may still see certain aspects a bit differently, but the fact remains, we both know science and technology remain the ticket out of the mess we’ve created for the Earth. That is what needs to be focused on. Those urging our politicians to increase standards and make the shift to greener energies are not doing so because they want to throw a wrench in everything. They know the technologies exist and they know it is an absolute must for the planet to stop warming, and, thus, stabilize the climate. They wouldn’t petition this if they didn’t think it possible and sustainable. This mess is bigger than any one individual can handle, but together we can focus on the “do-ables” and create the change we need and desire.
One such new technology that has been in the works is in nuclear energy. It is not well known, but several scientists, including the leading Russian scientist on cold fusion, have developed a way to use nuclear waste (spent uranium rods) as a form of energy. It is called Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Nuclear Energy. The reaction occurs in such a way that a meltdown is virtually done away with. We have enough nuclear waste that we could power the entire world for 50,000 years if no new nuclear waste were produced after today. We should be investing whole heartedly into that type of technological energy production and continue to research its potential.
You seem to divorce environmentalism from science. While there are those who don’t take a realistic approach to caring for the environment, those that I write about every day, and who are working behind the scenes are generally scientists who know the data and those groups who make sure that science is the over-riding principle for their calls to action. I believe these environmentalists have already brought clear answers and solutions to the table. One problem is that no one seems to be listening because there are heavy financial backers from the fossil fuel industry whose sole interest is to keep the profits coming and they do not want to see any policy change.
We need politicians to listen to the science, not the corporatist. The evidence gathered in 2010 showed that U.S. emissions did rise, despite the recession (or weak recovery whichever you prefer). Standards are high, but they could be higher. There are still plenty of cars that barely make 20 mpg, when 50 years ago Shell Oil proved you could get over 100 mpg in a regular engine. That is a lot more fuel efficient and would curb emissions drastically. Yet, I do not know of any mass produced vehicle that gets that kind of mileage.
I laugh at the whole idea of clean coal because coal in itself is a very dirty item. Technology can “scrub” out a wide array of pollutants and harmful greenhouse gases, but until science perfects carbon sequestration and power plants are willing to invest in them, coal continues to be dirty. Therefore, scientists have not only proposed higher emissions standards based on current technology, but they are urging the government to move completely away from coal and other fossil fuel energies. It takes time, and we know that many of the green technologies are not quite up to powering an entire nation. However, that gap will not be there for long and soon it will be quite easy to make the jump. Solar, wind, and geothermal energies are ready to make the leap into mass energy production.
We need politicians who look into the common good, not the better interests of fossil fuels. Neither a Republican majority nor a Democratic majority have shown that sort of leadership. I am no economist, so I don’t know everything that is involved in keeping a stable economy during a shift in the type of energy we consume. However, I’m also not blind, and I know that the fossil fuel lobby is throwing a heck of a lot of money at preventing these greener technologies from getting the same investment and advantages that they have had throughout the years. The playing field needs to be equalized and the referees need to stop being bought off.
I realize that we may still see certain aspects a bit differently, but the fact remains, we both know science and technology remain the ticket out of the mess we’ve created for the Earth. That is what needs to be focused on. Those urging our politicians to increase standards and make the shift to greener energies are not doing so because they want to throw a wrench in everything. They know the technologies exist and they know it is an absolute must for the planet to stop warming, and, thus, stabilize the climate. They wouldn’t petition this if they didn’t think it possible and sustainable. This mess is bigger than any one individual can handle, but together we can focus on the “do-ables” and create the change we need and desire.
No comments:
Post a Comment