The economy and the Green argument

purch

CLAPTON wrote: »

absurd argument

I was agreeing with you clappers, but in your one eyed world you are too dumb to see it.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

There are many demonstrable ways in which we are making the planet less able to support human life, for example overfishing. Catches are demonstrably falling.

As for CO2, I am highly sceptical as an economist of the predictive powers of modelling but at the same time the world does seem to be getting warmer and there is an apparent causal link.

If scientists start to doubt the validity of global warming en masse then I'd be very happy to look at my views again. Until that point I will believe in Global Warming as I believe in atomic theory, evolution and quantum mechanics.

whether or no there is a strong case for man made global warming (personally I think there is) the major issue is what should be done and what should not be done

because the actions are mainly determined by politicians wanting to grandstand, rather than evidence based science, we are
-not reducing warming gases ; in fact they are increasing
-spending money on the wrong technology
-ignoring issues because of political considerations
-allowing/encouraging other pollutants
-wasting massive amounts of money that could be better used for the general good.

cells

Generali wrote: »

There are many demonstrable ways in which we are making the planet less able to support human life, for example overfishing. Catches are demonstrably falling.

As for CO2, I am highly sceptical as an economist of the predictive powers of modelling but at the same time the world does seem to be getting warmer and there is an apparent causal link.

If scientists start to doubt the validity of global warming en masse then I'd be very happy to look at my views again. Until that point I will believe in Global Warming as I believe in atomic theory, evolution and quantum mechanics.

I don't know much about overfishing but it is clearly not a long term problem. Ie stop it and in ten years its fixed.

Also have you looked at the few ocean fertilisation experiments? Seems to work better than the most optimistic forecasts


You can believe in global warming, like I do, and accept that it is virtually impossible to be a net negative of any scale worth worrying about.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

whether or no there is a strong case for man made global warming (personally I think there is) the major issue is what should be done and what should not be done

because the actions are mainly determined by politicians wanting to grandstand, rather than evidence based science, we are
-not reducing warming gases ; in fact they are increasing
-spending money on the wrong technology
-ignoring issues because of political considerations
-allowing/encouraging other pollutants
-wasting massive amounts of money that could be better used for the general good.

Humans without doubt impact the world primarily through land use.

The ingrained false premise here is equating the word 'impact' with negative and its even getting close to equating human with evil its that absurd.


The simple fact is we are of this world and have a right to impact it
We are also the smart animals of this world and have a duty of care for it and the other animals.

humans are and will become the custodians of earth and save it from the true evils of chance and nature.

kabayiri

cells wrote: »

Think of cars

repaired all the time and designed to easily be so

Until it gets to a stage where repairing and maintaining costs more in energy and labour than a replacement

clearly everything has a finite life. That should be thr first thing to note in your value engineering

So then it becomes not a question of buy new or mend
but a question of replace NOW or Replace LATER (after a fix)


In some instances it will clearly be less labour and energy intensive to mend (you won't buy a new car if you get a flat tire you would instead replace the tire). Whereas on the opposite side it would be infinitely less labour and energy intensive to buy a new tooth brush than to try and repair the bristles.

Often its a simple question of size.
With small electronic not worth repairing while big items like cars or cranes or aeroplanes or homes definitely worth repairing

I would agree there is a balance point where it becomes economic to repair or replace.

One thing which value engineering has improved over the years is we can now predict the lifespan of components and products with decent accuracy.

I find this discussion interesting (and it beats talking about the SNP all the time!)

princeofpounds

We aren't a Green Economy. We simply outsource much of our pollution along with our industries, as anyone who has been to China and breathed the air can tell you.


That's not to say the Chinese are poor unwilling participants in all this. Just like lending and borrowing, it takes two to tango and agree to import/export.


We are all getting greener however, as the energy-intensity of GDP growth has been getting ever-lower over time. Whether it's enough to 'save the world' is another question.


Personally I think the Greens are rather ridiculous. As pointed out previously, they are primarily watermelons who think socialism will save the planet in the same way it saved the world's poor (except it didn't). And often I get the feeling the socialism comes first and the planet second.

Martyn1981

princeofpounds wrote: »

We are all getting greener however, as the energy-intensity of GDP growth has been getting ever-lower over time. Whether it's enough to 'save the world' is another question.

Personally I think the Greens are rather ridiculous. As pointed out previously, they are primarily watermelons who think socialism will save the planet in the same way it saved the world's poor (except it didn't). And often I get the feeling the socialism comes first and the planet second.

Have to agree, the world population is, at the very least, trying to be greener. But those at the extreme green end only irritate, or scare, and nobody is willing to take a massive step backwards economically. Similarly the 'bell (curve) enders' on the other side claiming that there is no CO2 issue, or that coal is safe to burn are similarly ignored, or laughed at these days. What really matters is that the vast mass of people in the main body of the bell curve continue to move steadily in the right direction, whether they like it or not.

The best move for a green economy is to get the biggest bully on its side, and that's now economics. Luckily, that seems to be where we are going, in fact we are probably almost there now as the balance seems to be tipping (economically) in favour of renewables and a green economy.

If storage issues can be resolved, in the next 20 years, as intermittent generation starts to exceed our ability to integrate/move it, then things will look up further.

Fossil Fuels Just Lost the Race Against Renewables

The race for renewable energy has passed a turning point. The world is now adding more capacity for renewable power each year than coal, natural gas, and oil combined. And there's no going back.

The shift occurred in 2013, when the world added 143 gigawatts of renewable electricity capacity, compared with 141 gigawatts in new plants that burn fossil fuels, according to an analysis presented Tuesday at the Bloomberg New Energy Finance annual summit in New York. The shift will continue to accelerate, and by 2030 more than four times as much renewable capacity will be added.

'The world is finally producing renewable energy at an industrial scale'

Renewables are finally becoming a globally significant source of power, according to a United Nations Environment Programme report released in March by Frankfurt School UNEP Centre and Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

Driven by rapid expansion in developing countries, new installations of carbon-free renewable power plants in 2014 surpassed 100,000 megawatts of capacity for the first time, according to the Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment report. It appears that renewable energy is now entering the market at a scale that is relevant in energy industry terms – and at a price that is competitive with fossil fuels.

Mart.

cells

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Have to agree, the world population is, at the very least, trying to be greener. But those at the extreme green end only irritate, or scare, and nobody is willing to take a massive step backwards economically. Similarly the 'bell (curve) enders' on the other side claiming that there is no CO2 issue, or that coal is safe to burn are similarly ignored, or laughed at these days. What really matters is that the vast mass of people in the main body of the bell curve continue to move steadily in the right direction, whether they like it or not.

The best move for a green economy is to get the biggest bully on its side, and that's now economics. Luckily, that seems to be where we are going, in fact we are probably almost there now as the balance seems to be tipping (economically) in favour of renewables and a green economy.

If storage issues can be resolved, in the next 20 years, as intermittent generation starts to exceed our ability to integrate/move it, then things will look up further.

Fossil Fuels Just Lost the Race Against Renewables



'The world is finally producing renewable energy at an industrial scale'



Mart.

Watermelon propaganda

CLAPTON

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Have to agree, the world population is, at the very least, trying to be greener. But those at the extreme green end only irritate, or scare, and nobody is willing to take a massive step backwards economically. Similarly the 'bell (curve) enders' on the other side claiming that there is no CO2 issue, or that coal is safe to burn are similarly ignored, or laughed at these days. What really matters is that the vast mass of people in the main body of the bell curve continue to move steadily in the right direction, whether they like it or not.

The best move for a green economy is to get the biggest bully on its side, and that's now economics. Luckily, that seems to be where we are going, in fact we are probably almost there now as the balance seems to be tipping (economically) in favour of renewables and a green economy.

If storage issues can be resolved, in the next 20 years, as intermittent generation starts to exceed our ability to integrate/move it, then things will look up further.

Fossil Fuels Just Lost the Race Against Renewables



'The world is finally producing renewable energy at an industrial scale'



Mart.

are CO2 and methane levels rising or falling?

Martyn1981

CLAPTON wrote: »

are CO2 and methane levels rising or falling?

Sadly still rising, and quite fast. But at least it looks like we are starting to turn the ship ....... slowly. Long, long way to go though, but not nearly as hard as it would be if the economics weren't shifting also.

So is it good news, not exactly, but it's certainly reduced bad news.

Mart.