Living Car Free - Is the new energy bill too watered down?

From http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/us/politics/01climate.html?_r=1&hp



The biggest concessions went to utilities, which wanted assurances that they could continue to operate and build coal-burning power plants without shouldering new costs. The utilities received not only tens of billions of dollars worth of free pollution permits, but also billions for work on technology to capture carbon-dioxide emissions from coal combustion to help meet future pollution targets.


A lot of us ride bicycles for environmental reasons (among others...) , so I'm wondering how you react to the new Climate bill? Is this the best the US government could pass through Congress? Is this really going to reduce our dependence on petroleum products?

From http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/us/politics/01climate.html?_r=1&hp



A lot of us ride bicycles for environmental reasons (among others...) , so I'm wondering how you react to the new Climate bill? Is this the best the US government could pass through Congress? Is this really going to reduce our dependence on petroleum products?

Is it the best? No. Our government no longer serves a purpose. This bill is full of garbage, and pork just like all of them.

Our only hope is through less consumption. Counting on someone else to fix the problem is the American way, but unfortunately this problem has to be solved by everyone doing their part.

The energy bill doesn't solve much, if anything.

The climate change bill will help, but not enough. But I'm glad it passed. Further legislation will be required, including a ban on trade with countries that are not working to drastically cut emissions.

Global warming is shaping up to be a much more dire problem than we knew even a couple years ago. Billions of people will be adversely affected before the end of this century. Legislators who voted against the climate change bill are traitors (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29krugman.html?_r=1) to the United States and to the world.

Our only hope is through less consumption. Counting on someone else to fix the problem is the American way, but unfortunately this problem has to be solved by everyone doing their part.

The energy bill doesn't solve much, if anything.

You think that people will voluntarily stop consuming? Dream on, my friend.

I have voluntarily reduced my consumption, I have influenced my family to reduce consumption, and I encourage others to reduce consumption whenever possible. That said, most people won't do it until they see a direct impact on their lives.

The energy bill is all well and good, but I'm afraid it's too little too late. Even when we reduce emissions, it will be too late to prevent much of the expected temperature change. I really believe local governments should be investigating plans to deal with the future climate change. I know some places are doing this, but it's astounding how much time we spend arguing over whether or not climate change is real and to what degree humans are contributing to it.

I have voluntarily reduced my consumption, I have influenced my family to reduce consumption, and I encourage others to reduce consumption whenever possible. That said, most people won't do it until they see a direct impact on their lives.

Voluntary reduction is great, but it is probably not sufficient. Of course, it's difficult to know how much you should reduce consumption. If I sell my Hummer and purchase a Prius, well... that's an example of reduced consumption, but it is definitely too little too late.

That why you need a governing body to step to the plate and create a national direction.

Unfortunately, this bill does seem to be very weak... I suspect largely because there's no political gain in doing the right thing. The public just hasn't bought into the idea.

The really sad fact is that a good national energy policy would solve several problems at once. It would raise the price of petroleum products to the point where the fluctuating price structures would be insignificant. My theory is that all these prices swings are very damaging to our economy: we don't know how to plan... where to buy a Hummer or a Trek. A really strong gas price would set us in the right direction.

As for coal, I think this is a lost cause. We need to rapidly reduce consumption and we also need to replace it with something more sustainable, cleaner. Unfortunately, my state is ready to pull the trigger on building a coal electricity plant... something that will stick around for 50 years or more.

You think that people will voluntarily stop consuming? Dream on, my friend.

It is a safe bet that everyone here has voluntarily reduced their consumption... It can happen.

Unfortunately, my state is ready to pull the trigger on building a coal electricity plant...

As someone with a lot of visibility into the utility industry, I can tell you this with confidence. For always necessary, base load type power generation, your choices are coal or nuclear. Period. Full stop. Nothing else is even CLOSE. I'll grant that in some regions (here in the Pacific Northwest for example) hydro power can be a good alternative, but those resources are pretty well tapped out at this point, and there is no political will to build new dams anyway. So pick your poison, coal or nuclear. For me it is an easy call, but others seem to think nuclear tech has not advanced since the 1950s...

Our only hope is through less consumption. Counting on someone else to fix the problem is the American way, but unfortunately this problem has to be solved by everyone doing their part.

The energy bill doesn't solve much, if anything.

+1 In fact it creates more problems than it solves. If it passes the Senate and the prez signs it, when it is implemented it will further cripple the economy. Alternative energy is still not ready for prime time. It will replace fossil fuels when it no loner needs government subsidy that is decidedly not today nor the next ten years. Cap and Trade is not going to impact the rich much (no matter if they favor blue or red), but it is going to impact the poor and middle class (that's us) when our electricity bills climb to astronomical levels.

Those who are in favor may want the long term goal of freedom of fossil fuels, but if the alternatives aren't competitive yet getting there without a plan for meeting the shortfall is going to be a little like removing an hot appendix without instruments or anesthetic. Your going to kill the patient .

Hawaii's power plants are around 80% oil-fired.

You think that people will voluntarily stop consuming? Dream on, my friend.

I never said that people actually will voluntarily consume less. I just think that that's the real solution to the problem. I think solar and wind energy are great for people hoping to live off the grid, and I hope that in the future electricity from utilities is supplied by renewable energy, but switching our source of energy doesn't change the fact that we use far too much energy in general and our lifestyles need to be scaled back.

Think of when CFCs were discovered to destroy ozone. We saw the science, interpreted it, and quickly found a solution in the form of other propellants in aerosols and alternatives to other uses in industry (refrigerators, styrofoam, etc.). The downside to that is that now everyone is waiting for that breakthrough in technology that saves the world, but doesn't force us to change any aspect of our lives (just like people who want to lose weight from a pill). Newsflash: that breakthrough is not around the corner and it never will be. Massive consumption is the culprit, and even pretending that we can control our greenhouse gas emissions without reducing consumption somehow, we then have to look at the impact that standard of living has on everyone else on the planet.

One other tangent, if I may: I think that the modern environmental movement might actually be doing more harm than good over the long term. When people think of "environmentalism," I'm pretty sure the message they hear is, in no particular order: buy a hybrid, buy organic, buy locally, buy CFLs, recycle, reduce your carbon footprint, etc. The problem with this is that if everyone follows those rules, they think they are doing enough. It's almost like people have a checklist in front of them that has everything that needs to be done in order to be a good environmentalist, and once they achieve something they are one step closer to having done all they possibly can. What I like to ask myself is, "What more can I do?" Anytime I have an opportunity to do something more to reduce my impact on the earth, I try to take advantage of it, and what I can't do right now due to living in a condo (such as small scale farming, renewable energy, etc.) I plan on doing at a later point in time.

It is the first ever bill limiting carbon emissions to be passed by the US House of Representatives. It is sorely lacking, but it is a huge step forward.

The climate change bill will help, but not enough. But I'm glad it passed. Further legislation will be required, including a ban on trade with countries that are not working to drastically cut emissions.

Global warming is shaping up to be a much more dire problem than we knew even a couple years ago. Billions of people will be adversely affected before the end of this century. Legislators who voted against the climate change bill are traitors (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29krugman.html?_r=1) to the United States and to the world.

Really?

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Its a freakin joke, My company truck already gets the mileage they ask for.
It is a political BS thing to try and make our stupid government look like they are doing something.

+1 In fact it creates more problems than it solves. If it passes the Senate and the prez signs it, when it is implemented it will further cripple the economy. Alternative energy is still not ready for prime time. It will replace fossil fuels when it no loner needs government subsidy that is decidedly not today nor the next ten years. Cap and Trade is not going to impact the rich much (no matter if they favor blue or red), but it is going to impact the poor and middle class (that's us) when our electricity bills climb to astronomical levels.

The current Congressional Budget Office estimates are that over the next 10 years, the utility bills of a family making $50k will be approximately $130-140 higher. For someone like me, who is already looking hard at reducing their natural gas, water and electricity use the impact will be less. I don't drive a car, so I really don't have a lot of control over how much diesel and gasoline I use... it's primarily due to having food, clothing and other goods shipped to my city.


Those who are in favor may want the long term goal of freedom of fossil fuels, but if the alternatives aren't competitive yet getting there without a plan for meeting the shortfall is going to be a little like removing an hot appendix without instruments or anesthetic. Your going to kill the patient .

Wrong. The typical American vehicle gets about 20 mpg. It's doable to build vehicles that do just as much in terms of people hauling and cargo hauling, but get 30 mpg. We already have the technology. 40 mpg is harder, but since we can do light vehicles that get 50 mpg, it really ought to be possible to bring the US fleet average up over 40. That is a very substantial reduction in the gasoline and diesel fuel we need. Further, improving our rail network so that rail freight can be used for most bulk cargo will substantially increase the efficiency of our cargo network. (rail freight is substantially better at moving heavy loads than truck freight in terms of fuel efficiency)

The coal/electrical system that's common in the US is pretty undesirable. Mining coal is a pretty nasty job, with a lot of long term health issues. Burning coal also tends to result in pretty serious long term health issues... if you track the incidence of asthma, you'll find that it is much more common near coal plants or other areas with heavy particulate pollution (like oh... highways). Asthma is not cheap to treat if it is at all serious. Reducing CO2 output also reduces the particulates.

Pretending that the costs to our health aren't there, and pretending that we don't already have the technology to do the minimum the bill is demanding is... pretty foolish. It will take time to change over, but the present bill allows an awful lot of time.

Really?

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Sorry, but the website you linked to is nonsense and garbage, and totally denies the scientific consensus about global warming. I urge people to stick to sites and books that are controlled by scientists, rather than shrill reporters, politicians and propagndists with an axe to grind for either side.

A good one with frequent updates is a blog written by several earth scientists:

http://www.realclimate.org/

Its a freakin joke, My company truck already gets the mileage they ask for.
It is a political BS thing to try and make our stupid government look like they are doing something.

Your company truck gets 35.5 mpg? That's fantastic! What kind of truck is it?

I think that what is really defeating steps to reduce climate change is the new spirit of pessimism, distrust and defeatism seen in America today. People believe that science, industry and the government are hopelessly corrupt and ineffectual.

The primary solution to global warming consists of transforming our electrical generating system so that it no longer emits greenhouse gases. This is a big, expensive job, along the order of effort World War II, although it can be spread out over many more years than the war took. (And remember, it was WW II that took the world out of the Great Depression--not the New Deal programs that preceded it.)

Like WW II, the energy war is certainly winnable. However, to win it we will need to have some basic trust in our way of government and business. We can no longer afford the silly belief that "government can't do anything right." After all, the democratic governments of the world led people in the battles that won WW II. If we all get together in concerted action now, we can win the war against global warming also.

React? How about nausia? We don't need any of this. We are broke, and lots of people are jobless right now. To even think about killing more jobs is senseless. I want a clean world too, but the developing nations are doing what we did a hundred years ago, and they are the major polluters now. Just try to convince them to kill their economy in the name of a healthy environment. It just ain't gonna happen.

React? How about nausia? We don't need any of this. We are broke, and lots of people are jobless right now. To even think about killing more jobs is senseless. I want a clean world too, but the developing nations are doing what we did a hundred years ago, and they are the major polluters now. Just try to convince them to kill their economy in the name of a healthy environment. It just ain't gonna happen.

I think a good case is made that "going green" will create many more jobs than it will destroy.

This could even be done with great speed. For example, a big tax credit for people who weatherize their homes would almost instantly create hundreds of thousands of middle class jobs that cannot be outsourced. At the same time, it would cut demand for coal, gas and oil with similar pollution reduction to taking several coal-fired power plants off line.

BTW, the developed nations still emit more than half of the greenhouse gases, although this is set to change any time now. Developed nations will always emit more on a per capita basis. There is simply no way that the poorer countries will ever catch up to us because we have such a huge head start.

Certainly you have hit on one of the most difficult aspects of global warming abatement--conflicts between the haves and the have-nots of the world. This issue is being addressed on the highest levels, as at the recent summit meeting in Italy, but it will be a long time before a solution is reached.

I want a clean world too, but the developing nations are doing what we did a hundred years ago, and they are the major polluters now. Just try to convince them to kill their economy in the name of a healthy environment. It just ain't gonna happen.



BTW, the developed nations still emit more than half of the greenhouse gases, although this is set to change any time now. Developed nations will always emit more on a per capita basis. There is simply no way that the poorer countries will ever catch up to us because we have such a huge head start.



Another aspect we tend to forget in this "us/them" dichotomy is that a lot of the different varieties of manufacture have moved to Asia because we do not want the pollution associated with it. So, in a sense, we export the greenhouse gas activity but we still need it to feed our way of life. Either way, there's pollution.

The sad part about this type of discussion is that while we are fiddling around trying to blame other parties, Rome is rapidly burning.

As someone with a lot of visibility into the utility industry, I can tell you this with confidence. For always necessary, base load type power generation, your choices are coal or nuclear. Period. Full stop. Nothing else is even CLOSE. I'll grant that in some regions (here in the Pacific Northwest for example) hydro power can be a good alternative, but those resources are pretty well tapped out at this point, and there is no political will to build new dams anyway. So pick your poison, coal or nuclear. For me it is an easy call, but others seem to think nuclear tech has not advanced since the 1950s...The sum of large scale renewable power from distributed sites can serve as base load up to a point, but that requires a lot more in the way of transmission. Arguably, given externalities, there's probably a point where baseload composed of renewables is more expensive than however much nuclear or coal, so I don't think an all renewable grid would be the most cost effective idea, but if a country as geographically small as Germany can illustrate how they could implement a distributed renewable grid, I'm pretty sure we can too.

Another aspect we tend to forget in this "us/them" dichotomy is that a lot of the different varieties of manufacture have moved to Asia because we do not want the pollution associated with it. So, in a sense, we export the greenhouse gas activity but we still need it to feed our way of life. Either way, there's pollution.

The sad part about this type of discussion is that while we are fiddling around trying to blame other parties, Rome is rapidly burning.

Very well put, gerv.

I think the US needs to go ahead and unilaterally put in a fully clean grid, no matter what it takes. We are the most technologically advanced country (for now) and we have the most resources (for now), so we should be first. Also, we are the worst offenders (for now) in GHG emissions, and that's another reason we should be first.

I think when other countries see how well this clean grid works for us--in terms of both secure clean energy and lots of jobs--they will be standing in line to buy our green technology. I for one would like to see us exporting know-how and machinery once again.

Very well put, gerv.

I think the US needs to go ahead and unilaterally put in a fully clean grid, no matter what it takes. We are the most technologically advanced country (for now) and we have the most resources (for now), so we should be first. Also, we are the worst offenders (for now) in GHG emissions, and that's another reason we should be first.

I think when other countries see how well this clean grid works for us--in terms of both secure clean energy and lots of jobs--they will be standing in line to buy our green technology. I for one would like to see us exporting know-how and machinery once again.

What exactly do you mean bye a fully clean grid? The concept of "no matter what it takes" is troubling for me. Raising the price of energy by 2 or 5 times from the current level, will result in loss of jobs, lower standard of living, as a result of the misallocation of investment. Investment in energy efficiency and conservation makes more sense. Let the natural price of energy and natural decisions by consumers make the best choices. Goverment subsidies just result in higher prices for the favored technology du jour, and everyone else having a higher utility or income tax, so a few people can get rebates/tax credits for their Photovoltaic system.

Your company truck gets 35.5 mpg? That's fantastic! What kind of truck is it?

I think that what is really defeating steps to reduce climate change is the new spirit of pessimism, distrust and defeatism seen in America today. People believe that science, industry and the government are hopelessly corrupt and ineffectual.

The primary solution to global warming consists of transforming our electrical generating system so that it no longer emits greenhouse gases. This is a big, expensive job, along the order of effort World War II, although it can be spread out over many more years than the war took. (And remember, it was WW II that took the world out of the Great Depression--not the New Deal programs that preceded it.)

Like WW II, the energy war is certainly winnable. However, to win it we will need to have some basic trust in our way of government and business. We can no longer afford the silly belief that "government can't do anything right." After all, the democratic governments of the world led people in the battles that won WW II. If we all get together in concerted action now, we can win the war against global warming also.

Last I saw the 35 mpg was for cars, my wifes new Prius gets almost 50, light truck 25 and my 8600GVW gets 22 in town, 2200 GVW is just over the weight rating for the light truck requirement., I hope I did not offend you, But until they get serious about changing the transportation systems of roads nothing will be fixed. I may have been rude by calling it a joke, but I was hoping for something a lot more stringent, I just got my wife a new Prius, and I saw the mileage ratings on the new Toyota's, made me sick, The show room was full of SUVs and ONE new Prius was outside. Prius is good car. The new SUVs were rated at 18 MPG, my 96 Astro gets 20
The heaviest fuel users on the road are not permitted to drive in the left lane in most cities, causing them to use much higher amounts of fuel in stop and go traffic.
Roads can't be built fast enough to handle the growing traffic, we have to get more cars off the road.
This will take the public to change their thinking, the government cant do that.
Roody, I think we all want things better, but here is my example, 5 of the people in our office live within 7 miles of the office, all own bicycles, one rides a bicycle, the rest drive Suburbans and F250 4X4 Trucks. I am working on these 4 people.
THANK you for commenting on my comment.

What exactly do you mean bye a fully clean grid? The concept of "no matter what it takes" is troubling for me. Raising the price of energy by 2 or 5 times from the current level, will result in loss of jobs, lower standard of living, as a result of the misallocation of investment. Investment in energy efficiency and conservation makes more sense. Let the natural price of energy and natural decisions by consumers make the best choices. Goverment subsidies just result in higher prices for the favored technology du jour, and everyone else having a higher utility or income tax, so a few people can get rebates/tax credits for their Photovoltaic system.

Wrong. Energy prices need to rise to cover costs plus some profit. I don't think we need to keep prices artificially low, as that supports a lifestyle that is somehow false... particularly when other countries are well aware that costs are rising. (You should consider environmental damage as a cost.. since that is what is really is... and a very steep one.)

Problem with the kind of false price structure is that it also is a disincentive for countries like the US to fully deal with a serious problem. You can bet that someone, somewhere is going to get in on this game... developing superior technology to deliver what Roody calls a clean grid. Whoever that country or group of countries is will own the 21st century.

With the mindset -- that is the political and societal willpower -- I keep sensing from most Americans, I don't think it will be the US.

What exactly do you mean bye a fully clean grid? The concept of "no matter what it takes" is troubling for me. Raising the price of energy by 2 or 5 times from the current level, will result in loss of jobs, lower standard of living, as a result of the misallocation of investment. Investment in energy efficiency and conservation makes more sense. Let the natural price of energy and natural decisions by consumers make the best choices. Goverment subsidies just result in higher prices for the favored technology du jour, and everyone else having a higher utility or income tax, so a few people can get rebates/tax credits for their Photovoltaic system.

First, by fully clean grid, I mean a system that generates electricity for the entire country with zero GHG emissions.

Second, people who think that new electricity infrastructure will drastically raise energy prices forget a few facts:

Startup costs are deceptive because they can be distributed over many years. For example, we just built a grid of several hundred thousand cell phone towers, that cost many billions of dollars. In spite of this massive investment, cell phone costs are going down (or staying steady while new features are added.) This is because the phone companies issued bonds to pay for the towers, and they will slowly pay off the bonds over the next 20 years (or whatever longish period). A new electrical grid would probably be financed in the same way.
The advances in efficiency of a new grid will help to pay for it. This is like when you buy a more efficient dishwasher. In two or three years, it is said to "pay for itself" thanks to the cost savings of a more efficient model.
Why do you assume that government would pay for a new grid? I know that a lot of countries would do it that way. Here in the USA, I think it's more likely that private industry would pay for this, and expect to make a profit--much as the cellphone companies are doing.
We have to do it anyway. The electrical grid we have now is old and falling apart. Maintenance and replacement costs are rising fast, and we've had some problems with blackouts and brownouts. It makes sense to rebuild with the technology of the 21st century.
Many consumers will save money with a new energy grid. It will be a "smart" system that can buy electricity that's produced by individual consumers who have solar arrays, windmills, or future technologies like fuel cells.
.

Sorry, but the website you linked to is nonsense and garbage, and totally denies the scientific consensus about global warming. I urge people to stick to sites and books that are controlled by scientists, rather than shrill reporters, politicians and propagndists with an axe to grind for either side.

There's plenty of bright scientists that say it is a myth too!


First, by fully clean grid, I mean a system that generates electricity for the entire country with zero GHG emissions.

That explains it! Sounds like the same Utopia that's being jammed down our throats or up our a** (depending on your perspective) with the new health care proposal.

Sorry, couldn't resist taking jabs at a local. I toured your Delta Plant (if that's were you work) with my MSU class the other day. Not sure about cooling it with swamp coolers in the midwest though, I guess if it saves electricity...

Go Green!

There's plenty of bright scientists that say it is a myth too!
name three




That explains it! Sounds like the same Utopia that's being jammed down our throats or up our a** (depending on your perspective) with the new health care proposal.
I don't think it's utopian, unless one accepts the premise that Americans have lost the ability to dream big and then make our dreams into reality.


Sorry, couldn't resist taking jabs at a local. I toured your Delta Plant (if that's were you work) with my MSU class the other day. Not sure about cooling it with swamp coolers in the midwest though, I guess if it saves electricity...
Thanks. It's always great to have a fellow Michigander/Spartan here. But I don't work in an auto plant. I work in a large local hospital.



Go Green!

[QUOTE=Roody;9270608]name three

I know you will consider this nonsense etc. but hey you asked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus

[QUOTE=Roody;9270608]name three

I know you will consider this nonsense etc. but hey you asked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus

Well that's 30 scientists who deny anthropogenic warming--although some say they don't know, or they think warming will occur but be positive (for humans--not sure about other organisms).

So fewer than 30, really, arrayed against many thousands of scientists who believe that AGW is a serious and likely threat. Not to mention the national science foundations of every country in the world that has a science foundation, and all the atmospheric science organizations.

React? How about nausia? We don't need any of this. We are broke, and lots of people are jobless right now. To even think about killing more jobs is senseless. I want a clean world too, but the developing nations are doing what we did a hundred years ago, and they are the major polluters now. Just try to convince them to kill their economy in the name of a healthy environment. It just ain't gonna happen.

Actually, not true. We're still a worse polluter than China. We have 300m people. They have over 1b people. Even if they were putting out as much pollution as the US does, they would be *far* more efficient per person. India produces less pollution as well, and has nearly 1b people. If you put India and China together, they might beat us. That's pretty damn efficient for nearly 2b people, and they're the biggest polluters among "third world" countries. When politicians talk about the US needing to be a good example... this is *exactly* what they mean. (we beat out everyone on the planet btw, both in raw emissions *and* on a per capita basis)

The US also controls a large share of the world's oil supply. We use 5 times as much as we produce. The remainder must be imported, which does really wretched things for the federal budget. (also to corporate budgets)

Further, since we don't actually have the technology in place to meet the emissions goals, that means we need to build stuff to meet the goals. Generally, the stuff in question (power plants mostly) can't be outsourced to another country. Useful, since at least in the short term it means more jobs here.

A lot of the stuff the coal companies scream most about is stuff like mountain-top removal bans. Part of why they scream is that it's very expensive to slice off the top of a mountain and then put it back together after. It takes a lot more workers and a lot more time... but it also means that the workers still have water to drink and don't have their homes flooded out. Or gassed out because the idiot coal company set the mountain on fire from the inside out. (native Pennsylvanian, bitter) United Mineworkers members are some of the most rabid environmentalists I know. Coal company execs... not so much. The coal execs don't have to live there.

It won't be pain free. Change never is. But going from our present pollution levels to a per capita rate more like Great Britain's or Canada's would be pretty damn painless over a 10-30 year timespan... which is stricter than what the bill in Congress proposes.

[QUOTE=ndbiker;9272492]

Well that's 30 scientists who deny anthropogenic warming--although some say they don't know, or they think warming will occur but be positive (for humans--not sure about other organisms).

So fewer than 30, really, arrayed against many thousands of scientists who believe that AGW is a serious and likely threat. Not to mention the national science foundations of every country in the world that has a science foundation, and all the atmospheric science organizations.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Here are a few more. I realize this list was made over a period of eleven years (some of the people are dead now) but the idea that the "science" is iron clad is overstating the facts at the least. I have lived through "we're going to die because of the upcoming ice age" to our present situation. We were all going to die because of SARS, Bird Flu, starvation yada, yada, yada so if I don't take the media and the theoretical scientific community very seriously they have done it to themselves by crying wolf far too many times. I also have a problem when one of the major proponants of "climate change/global warming" lives a life style completely counter to his stance on the "CRISIS". If he lived like Ed Bagley Jr. or Bill Nye I would take his warnings more seriously. Finally, I am 50 years old and the weather has been the same for as long as I can remember. The only thing that has changed is that the air and water is much cleaner. I remember back in the mid 1990's when Al Gore told us that parts of Asia would be under water by 2015 (according to researchers). It hasn't happened. If I doubt that it will happen again by 2050 forgive me. Like others I will do my part to use as few resources as necessary. I will even use less carbon where it is cost effective but I truly feel that to treat what I perceive as "sensationalism" as a crisis worthy of bankrupting our country and perhaps even our planet is fatal folly.

[QUOTE=Roody;9272584]

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Here are a few more. I realize this list was made over a period of eleven years (some of the people are dead now) but the idea that the "science" is iron clad is overstating the facts at the least. I have lived through "we're going to die because of the upcoming ice age" to our present situation. We were all going to die because of SARS, Bird Flu, starvation yada, yada, yada so if I don't take the media and the theoretical scientific community very seriously they have done it to themselves by crying wolf far too many times. I also have a problem when one of the major proponants of "climate change/global warming" lives a life style completely counter to his stance on the "CRISIS". If he lived like Ed Bagley Jr. or Bill Nye I would take his warnings more seriously. Finally, I am 50 years old and the weather has been the same for as long as I can remember. The only thing that has changed is that the air and water is much cleaner. I remember back in the mid 1990's when Al Gore told us that parts of Asia would be under water by 2015 (according to researchers). It hasn't happened. If I doubt that it will happen again by 2050 forgive me. Like others I will do my part to use as few resources as necessary. I will even use less carbon where it is cost effective but I truly feel that to treat what I perceive as "sensationalism" as a crisis worthy of bankrupting our country and perhaps even our planet is fatal folly.

Well said!
What's especially scary is insane kooks like John Holdren, Mr Obama’s science advisor, advocating "geo-engineering", actually proposing injecting pollution into the atmosphere to reflect the sun rays to cool the planet.
Talk about risking the destruction of our planet!

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Here are a few more. I realize this list was made over a period of eleven years (some of the people are dead now) but the idea that the "science" is iron clad is overstating the facts at the least. I have lived through "we're going to die because of the upcoming ice age" to our present situation. We were all going to die because of SARS, Bird Flu, starvation yada, yada, yada so if I don't take the media and the theoretical scientific community very seriously they have done it to themselves by crying wolf far too many times. I also have a problem when one of the major proponants of "climate change/global warming" lives a life style completely counter to his stance on the "CRISIS". If he lived like Ed Bagley Jr. or Bill Nye I would take his warnings more seriously. Finally, I am 50 years old and the weather has been the same for as long as I can remember. The only thing that has changed is that the air and water is much cleaner. I remember back in the mid 1990's when Al Gore told us that parts of Asia would be under water by 2015 (according to researchers). It hasn't happened. If I doubt that it will happen again by 2050 forgive me. Like others I will do my part to use as few resources as necessary. I will even use less carbon where it is cost effective but I truly feel that to treat what I perceive as "sensationalism" as a crisis worthy of bankrupting our country and perhaps even our planet is fatal folly.

I suggest that--when it comes to analyzing the scientific underpinnings--you confine your reading to the actual scientists who are working in the field. Reporters, popularizers, celebrities, and ploiticians all have their place, but they are not dispassionate scientists. They do tend to make exaggerated claims to make their points (and so do you). The links I gave, such as realclimate.org, are scientific sources. I believe they're trustworthy and not sensationalistic. There are other sites I like (350.org, for instance), but these are political rather than scientific. I think it's important to distinguish between the two.

Also, I think it's illogical to refute a scientific theory because you respect or disrespect the perceived lifestyle of a certain politician or celebrity. Your argument is much stronger if you stick to the relevant facts. Scientific issues won't be settled in People Magazine.

(BTW, the above post--#34 by TjX--somehow comes across as my quote, but it's actually a quote of ndbiker. I think there's some problem with the quote function of BF.)

Well, this is all very interesting, kind of like a trail your walk or ride. It is great the first or second time, but beyond that, most of us look for a new trail, or in this case, a new topic. This is a bike forum, and people's political views are hardly a topic for an 'escape' like this. Sure, we all have opinions of climate change (this week's description), since global warming is a dumb, scare tactic dreamed up by political hacks. There are countless blogs and forums devoted to this kind of needless banter about things no one has any control over, let alone the people doing all the polluting all over the world. Nope, no solutions in our lifetimes. Maybe when all the resources are used up, and we area all choking to death while drinking water that is so foul that it kills us before we suffocate, some genius will say we ought to do something. The 'green' movement has been around long before many of you were born, and I sure would like to see some meaningful progress. You don't have to be a cynic to understand human nature, and that has not changed much. If anything, it has gotten much worse.

Well, this is all very interesting, kind of like a trail your walk or ride. It is great the first or second time, but beyond that, most of us look for a new trail, or in this case, a new topic. This is a bike forum, and people's political views are hardly a topic for an 'escape' like this. Sure, we all have opinions of climate change (this week's description), since global warming is a dumb, scare tactic dreamed up by political hacks. There are countless blogs and forums devoted to this kind of needless banter about things no one has any control over, let alone the people doing all the polluting all over the world. Nope, no solutions in our lifetimes. Maybe when all the resources are used up, and we area all choking to death while drinking water that is so foul that it kills us before we suffocate, some genius will say we ought to do something. The 'green' movement has been around long before many of you were born, and I sure would like to see some meaningful progress. You don't have to be a cynic to understand human nature, and that has not changed much. If anything, it has gotten much worse.

I refuse to let hopelessness creep in. If I did, I'd never get out of bed in the morning.

A bike forum is a great place to discuss climate change. I suspect it's one reason why many have taken up cycling.

I refuse to let hopelessness creep in. If I did, I'd never get out of bed in the morning.

A bike forum is a great place to discuss climate change. I suspect it's one reason why many have taken up cycling.

That and to be able to drink more beer:D:love:

Aaron:)

Well, this is all very interesting, kind of like a trail your walk or ride. It is great the first or second time, but beyond that, most of us look for a new trail, or in this case, a new topic. This is a bike forum, and people's political views are hardly a topic for an 'escape' like this. Sure, we all have opinions of climate change (this week's description), since global warming is a dumb, scare tactic dreamed up by political hacks. There are countless blogs and forums devoted to this kind of needless banter about things no one has any control over, let alone the people doing all the polluting all over the world. Nope, no solutions in our lifetimes. Maybe when all the resources are used up, and we area all choking to death while drinking water that is so foul that it kills us before we suffocate, some genius will say we ought to do something. The 'green' movement has been around long before many of you were born, and I sure would like to see some meaningful progress. You don't have to be a cynic to understand human nature, and that has not changed much. If anything, it has gotten much worse.You tell 'em cuz!

And I'm also tired of those politicians who dreamed up the nutty theories that the earth is round and people are descended from monkeys.

Or that one politician who did all that work on the theory of relativity. What was his name again?

I suggest that--when it comes to analyzing the scientific underpinnings--you confine your reading to the actual scientists who are working in the field. Reporters, popularizers, celebrities, and ploiticians all have their place, but they are not dispassionate scientists. They do tend to make exaggerated claims to make their points (and so do you). The links I gave, such as realclimate.org, are scientific sources. I believe they're trustworthy and not sensationalistic. There are other sites I like (350.org, for instance), but these are political rather than scientific. I think it's important to distinguish between the two.

Also, I think it's illogical to refute a scientific theory because you respect or disrespect the perceived lifestyle of a certain politician or celebrity. Your argument is much stronger if you stick to the relevant facts. Scientific issues won't be settled in People Magazine.

(BTW, the above post--#34 by TjX--somehow comes across as my quote, but it's actually a quote of ndbiker. I think there's some problem with the quote function of BF.)

Seems like many people have difficulty differentiating between an information source that has some credibility as science (even if you disagree with it...) and something that was probably funded by Exxon Mobile. Perhaps the media -- internet and television specifically -- just compound the issue. I was watching television this afternoon and had to listen to an ad that said we really need a "balanced" solution to climate change... I garnered what they meant by "balanced", but it is a subtle point that might confuse some...

My problem is that even a diehard climate change denier would have to admit that there's a good chance that climate change may be real. It's like building your house on a scenic ocean front property knowing full well that a tidal wave is imminent. We know the tidal wave will come sometime, but most likely it won't affect me in my life... so I'll just hope my kids won't mind.