Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nenjin]

Soylent Green is made of something which cannot be proven to be people.

[Phmcw]

How come you distrust them so much when they come with warnings?
The same scientist came with the global warming (now almost unchallenged), the dangers of pesticides, and so on...

I for one trust transparent scientific development. People have too much tenancies to disregard everything to save money (for instance the recent problem with the mediator in France), they must be watched (and those who watch, and those who choose those who watch. Those choosing the poeple that choose the poeple that watch being us.).

[Leafsnail]

Well, it would be good to see progressively tighter emissions controls.  Not economy-destroying, but more of a continued gradual improvement.  California is...not a sane place when it comes to regulations.

It doesn't even need to be punitive.  Just a tax to make pollution reflect its actual cost to clean up or the damage it does would be a good start (although of course it's kindof difficult to predict the full cost of, say, significantly changing the make up of the atmosphere...).

And then... well, what if by the time the inventors are incentivised to make these alternatives, it's already too late?

[Sowelu]

I think that's already done in some kinds of computer manufacturing in some areas (monitors, maybe?).  The consumer pays a recycling surcharge, refundable when they do actually recycle the monitor.

Buuuut yeah.  That climate change thing is a real beast.  What makes it such a nasty problem is that there are two sides arguing that it's man-made or natural-cycle and both are very right.  Even in the short term, natural cycles have a MUCH bigger effect than environmentalists give credit for.  But, anthropogenic effects are also pretty damn huge.  Yes, temperatures might end up dropping for the next decade, I wouldn't be surprised if they do.  But either way I think the political tipping point is going to end up being the Maldives.  Sea levels keep rising, nation vanishes into the sea, yeah I think people are going to catch on.  A lot later than they ideally ought to, but hey whatever life goes on.

[Leafsnail]

If there is a natural cycle, all the more reason to stop making it even worse.

And people will "Catch on"... but what exactly will that mean?  For, say, fish stocks, we've known they've collapsed for a long time, but quotas and the like are needed to avoid having them completely wiped out.  I think that when an action is beneficial to an individual, but disasterous to everyone else regulation is required.

[Sowelu]

"Catch on" = "have enough force behind them for strict regulations", just like with those fish stocks.  If/when the Maldives lose another 20cm, there's going to be tons of attention.  (Their government is already buying up tons of land in India etc. to serve as a new homeland for when they go under)

[Glowcat]

Buuuut yeah.  That climate change thing is a real beast.  What makes it such a nasty problem is that there are two sides arguing that it's man-made or natural-cycle and both are very right.  Even in the short term, natural cycles have a MUCH bigger effect than environmentalists give credit for.

Do people actually believe there aren't natural causes constantly at play? I've never heard that argued and your usage of the broad label 'environmentalist' communicates that it is a common position, which would be a complete misrepresentation.

Global Warming is only a scientific certainty because the non-human causes cannot alone account for the increasing temperatures whereas the increase of Carbon Dioxide and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere would predict the increased (global) temperature -- predictions which have born empirical fruit in many different observations/experiments across the world.

[Leafsnail]

"Catch on" = "have enough force behind them for strict regulations", just like with those fish stocks.  If/when the Maldives lose another 20cm, there's going to be tons of attention.  (Their government is already buying up tons of land in India etc. to serve as a new homeland for when they go under)

The problem is... I'm not sure how much anyone's going to care about the Maldives.  I mean, is there huge political uproar over Tuvalu?

[Virex]

Somewhere down the line? It has already happened. Nations have run out of resources multiple times due to artificial forces, such as wars, and found substitutes. More expensive and sometimes less effective substitutes, but substitutes. For example, nitrates are a critical component in explosives. For a long time, saltpeter was the only industrial source of nitrates. When WWI broke out, Germany had no accessible source of nitrates and had to improvise. Although the army had burned out its stocks of gunpowder in only four months, chemists would develop synthetic gunpowder fast enough the Germans never missed a shot. They would also develop synthetic rubber, which was once considered as strategic a resource as oil is today.

All in all I have real confidence in the ability of scientists and inventors to innovate new solution so long as they follow the money and not the politicians for direction.

Funny you should mention war-time Germany, because for at least a part of the second world war, Germany was using the Fischer-Trops process to make oil (which they had none off) out of coal (which they had plenty off). Same process is expected to become profitable when oil prices skyrocket and can also be adapted to run on other carbon sources such as wood.

[Nikov]

Somewhere down the line? It has already happened. Nations have run out of resources multiple times due to artificial forces, such as wars, and found substitutes. More expensive and sometimes less effective substitutes, but substitutes. For example, nitrates are a critical component in explosives. For a long time, saltpeter was the only industrial source of nitrates. When WWI broke out, Germany had no accessible source of nitrates and had to improvise. Although the army had burned out its stocks of gunpowder in only four months, chemists would develop synthetic gunpowder fast enough the Germans never missed a shot. They would also develop synthetic rubber, which was once considered as strategic a resource as oil is today.

All in all I have real confidence in the ability of scientists and inventors to innovate new solution so long as they follow the money and not the politicians for direction.

Funny you should mention war-time Germany, because for at least a part of the second world war, Germany was using the Fischer-Trops process to make oil (which they had none off) out of coal (which they had plenty off). Same process is expected to become profitable when oil prices skyrocket and can also be adapted to run on other carbon sources such as wood.

Second world war and not first, but yes. I'd considered mentioning that as well. Additionally I recall Germany pioneered catalytic cracking of heavier hydrocarbons into lighter ones to turn useless heating oil (useless in wartime at least) into aviation fuel. The practice is still done to switch some diesel to gasoline (which fetches a higher price otherwise) and one of the big industrial uses of platium. As a long-term or strategic option, American coal reserves are enormous and widespread and switching to coal-derived fuel is one of many 'alternative energy' options, along with biomass derived ethanol.

I'm oddly comfortable with a future where only industries and the military make use of hydrocarbon fuels and the rest of us just plug our cars into the nuclear power grid. I just want it to be economically encouraged rather than shoved down our throats with political force.

[Aqizzar]

I have to ask then, if you think it's a good idea, why does it matter how the system comes about?

I don't have any particular faith in the coal-conversion idea.  The problem with climate change is the abundance of carbon dioxide.  It doesn't matter where the carbon comes from, and if anything, the energy intensive process of turning coal into oil is only using up more energy to turn abundant coal into a more useful form.  It's industrial-scale energy expended for convenience alone.

[Leafsnail]

The problem is if that point comes after the climate is irreversibly damaged.

And, well, not like nuclear energy is sustainable either .

[Aqizzar]

And, well, not like nuclear energy is sustainable either .

...It's considerably moreso though.  Like, geological timescale, rather than human timescale.

But yes, the point is, waiting for the economics of petroleum shortage to make transition to non-carbon based energy financially viable may take longer than it takes for us to irrecoverably damage the environment.  I don't know where that point is, but I'd rather not gamble on it for the sake of saving money or saving face.

[Nikov]

The problem is if that point comes after the climate is irreversibly damaged.

We'll be growing coffee in West Virginia and sugar cane in Indiana. Goodbye trade imbalance, hello export crops. Meanwhile our biggest trade rival, China? Their entire industrial base is underwater.

Its all part of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

[Max White]

*Spark of intrest*
Looks in thread*
*Dies a little*
Aww, American politics, that's no fun. With your ultra polerised govenment, people can take a real stand point. Here in Australia it's like debating apples and oranges, and that brings in fun.