UN Embarrassed by Forecast on Climate Refugees for 2010

[PLAYER57832]

However, burning coal and nuclear output will have to rise a bigillion % to supply the electricity for all the electric cars.

For all the complaining player does about unaccounted for costs, for some reason I never hear this one.

That's because you have never heard me giving much support for either nuclear energy OR electric cars.

And.. the problems with nuclear energy are similar to those with oil. The impacts don't effect everyone using oil today, and certainly don't impact those in charge of the companies, so they get ignored.

[Night Strike]

However, burning coal and nuclear output will have to rise a bigillion % to supply the electricity for all the electric cars.

For all the complaining player does about unaccounted for costs, for some reason I never hear this one.

That's because you have never heard me giving much support for either nuclear energy OR electric cars.

And.. the problems with nuclear energy are similar to those with oil. The impacts don't effect everyone using oil today, and certainly don't impact those in charge of the companies, so they get ignored.

Player, the only way to have exactly zero impacts on everybody as far as pollution, etc. is to remove every single bit of technology we have. Sorry, but that's not going to happen, nor should it. As long as there is technology, there will be some form of pollution. You can't be against energy sources simply because it causes some sort of pollution. Look for ways to treat that pollution, not to remove the energy sources. It's a cost-benefit analysis at every level, but you can't just say "hidden costs trump everything" because that's a cop-out, not a solution. Yet that's what you do on every energy policy issue.


TGD brought up ethanol. Ethanol is the biggest fraud currently in the energy industry. It actually takes more energy to produce 1 gallon of ethanol than it does for 1 gallon of oil. And want to talk about hidden costs? Ethanol has made the cost of corn to skyrocket, which is why ALL of our food prices have risen (you know, that other cost that real people have to pay yet the CPI never includes in their inflation index). It is STUPID to burn our food supply, and we're already reaping the consequences of it.

[PLAYER57832]

The article was written to show how ridiculous the UN pronouncement was and how people who listened to it and changed their lives did it for no good reason. And I think the UN should be embarrassed about this, same as the oil companies, except that the oil companies get their comeuppance on a daily basis from everyone and the UN doesn't (except from the climate change deniers). And the climate change deniers are proven wrong because the science shows that climate change exists and are thusly dismissed. I'm trying to show that you can offer the UN it's comeuppance without being a climate change denier.

Except you missed a few steps.

First, the UN did not actually make the kind of mistake you assert. The UN really doesn't have a single vested interest. Oil companies do. The UN? It responds to political pressures and such.

so, there is no power or control or "world tax" that qualify as a vested interest?

There are a lot of individual vested interests that pull the UN in various directions. There is no unified "UN mind". Referring to the UN as an independent entity in that manner is therefore pointless. You have to look at why it has reacted as it does and whom is actually exerting the pressure, how they are exerting the pressure, etc.

And, you have to recognize that all of those forces are constantly changing, though more and more big business is the real power behind every change.

I have heard it said and find it somewhat true that the whole idea of diplomacy, negotiating between countries is almost dead because the real negotiating occurs in board rooms. The largest companies are more powerful than any nation. THAT is why we now have so little voice.

Or, as I have said before .. Big Brother is already here, but it is not, as you like to put forward the government and never was. Not even as set forth by George Orwell.

[GreecePwns]

However, burning coal and nuclear output will have to rise a bigillion % to supply the electricity for all the electric cars.

For all the complaining player does about unaccounted for costs, for some reason I never hear this one.

That's because you have never heard me giving much support for either nuclear energy OR electric cars.

And.. the problems with nuclear energy are similar to those with oil. The impacts don't effect everyone using oil today, and certainly don't impact those in charge of the companies, so they get ignored.

Player, the only way to have exactly zero impacts on everybody as far as pollution, etc. is to remove every single bit of technology we have. Sorry, but that's not going to happen, nor should it. As long as there is technology, there will be some form of pollution. You can't be against energy sources simply because it causes some sort of pollution. Look for ways to treat that pollution, not to remove the energy sources. It's a cost-benefit analysis at every level, but you can't just say "hidden costs trump everything" because that's a cop-out, not a solution. Yet that's what you do on every energy policy issue.


TGD brought up ethanol. Ethanol is the biggest fraud currently in the energy industry. It actually takes more energy to produce 1 gallon of ethanol than it does for 1 gallon of oil. And want to talk about hidden costs? Ethanol has made the cost of corn to skyrocket, which is why ALL of our food prices have risen (you know, that other cost that real people have to pay yet the CPI never includes in their inflation index). It is STUPID to burn our food supply, and we're already reaping the consequences of it.

This is all true. And its also why if we're going to pursue alternative energy we should look to wind/solar/hydroelectricity. I remember during 2008 elections seeing people say how "we can't get there from here." I think that's a big bullshit excuse to not do anything about the problem. I'd like to see those same people say, with a straight face, how we rely on foreign oil "from countries that don't really like us." Diversifying energy sources is all fine and good, but wind, solar and hydroelectric energy never runs out, while oil and coal will eventually.

[thegreekdog]

Ethanol has little to do with saving the environment and a lot to do with tax breaks for the wealthy, powerful fatcats.

[PLAYER57832]

However, burning coal and nuclear output will have to rise a bigillion % to supply the electricity for all the electric cars.

For all the complaining player does about unaccounted for costs, for some reason I never hear this one.

That's because you have never heard me giving much support for either nuclear energy OR electric cars.

And.. the problems with nuclear energy are similar to those with oil. The impacts don't effect everyone using oil today, and certainly don't impact those in charge of the companies, so they get ignored.

Player, the only way to have exactly zero impacts on everybody as far as pollution, etc. is to remove every single bit of technology we have. Sorry, but that's not going to happen, nor should it. As long as there is technology, there will be some form of pollution. You can't be against energy sources simply because it causes some sort of pollution. Look for ways to treat that pollution, not to remove the energy sources. It's a cost-benefit analysis at every level, but you can't just say "hidden costs trump everything" because that's a cop-out, not a solution. Yet that's what you do on every energy policy issue.

No. it is not what I do, it is what you like to claim I do because you refuse to accept either the depth of the problem OR the possibility of alternatives.

To begin, the whole idea of "no pollution" is simplistic to the point of nonsense. Even fully natural agents like manure (cow, pig, chicken, etc. poop) are pollution if dumped in the wrong locations or quantities. Dump it in a stream and it IS pollution, does cause very serious harm. Dump it in my garden, however, and I am very, very happy.... (provided you don't put too much in there!). I am quite capable of ensuring that it does not pollute the stream downhill from my. My neighbors -- hire Chem lawn and could care less if they kill half of my garden. (literally) as a result of mis-application of herbicides by low paid technicians. Of course, bad as that is, the average home owner over-uses herbicides and pesticides by something like 700% (or so I have read in pesticide industry reports -- when I got my application license a few years ago).

Anyway, that is the key. PROPER and EFFECTIVE utilization of resources. From the outset, it baffles me (not really, but bear with me) why business so wants to see environmentalism as "the enemy". Except.. they actually do not. More and more businesses ARE coming to recognizet that doing things in an environmentally sound manner is more cost effective for them. The problem is that our economy, our rules are absolutely skewed against the environment, against any environmental impact. About the only exception is the endangered species act and that (as much as I agree we need such legislation) often gets over-utlized or misutilized.

Let me give you a practical example. Sewage is a big issue. Know one of the most effective and cheapest ways to deal with natural effluent? A marsh! Know how many areas use this "technology"? I don't know the exact number, but very few. One of the first was installed near my alma mater (I actually worked on it, planted a good portion of it myself). It was so "groundbreaking" it won a Ford Foundation award of $100K. The same "nasty things" the Corps of engineers just spent over 50 years doing away with down south.. those same things are now prizes recognized for both their filtration capacity, birth and juvenile nursery grounds for many commercial species (and food for other commercial species),etc, etc, etc.

It is not environmentalists who are ignoring reality, thinking unsensibly or in uneconomic terms. That is the irony.

Further, you are wrong in your assumption that appropriate technology doesn't work. ... very, very wrong. There is a huge movement toward enviromentally sound engineering, business, etc. They do not get the huge funding that the chemical and gas companies get from the government, etc. However, they are making progress, despite that lack.

[quote="Night Strike"
TGD brought up ethanol. Ethanol is the biggest fraud currently in the energy industry. It actually takes more energy to produce 1 gallon of ethanol than it does for 1 gallon of oil. [/quote]
Yes, which is something I said in several threads a while back. See, you are not paying attention to what I am actually saying. You are jumping to conclusions given to by someone else.

And want to talk about hidden costs? Ethanol has made the cost of corn to skyrocket, which is why ALL of our food prices have risen (you know, that other cost that real people have to pay yet the CPI never includes in their inflation index). It is STUPID to burn our food supply, and we're already reaping the consequences of it.

I agree and disagree. It is absolutely stupid to use our food supply for food. We can currently "afford" to do so, but only for a time. The overall harm is still far less than comes from petroleum use, and is actually more sustainable, but that gets into a lot of complicated data that you will no doubt dispute anyway.

The REAL issue is that ethanol does not have to be made from nice food grains. There IS a place for some ethanol in what are truly waste products. This is NOT what is being done right now, because making ethanol from nice seed corn in cheaper. Again, that gets back to the skewing of our market to avoid real costs. Even so, ethanol will never be able to truly replace petroleum products. There is not enough waste and the things considered true waste keeps shrinking as enterprising folks find uses for those previously neglected resources.

However, those are not the only solutions.. neither is electric run cars, etc. I would like to see more research into hydrogen fuel. A lot of the "problems" have been overstated. I would also like to see a lot of the engines already invented, but with patents held by the oil companies, brought out into open production. I still remember the man who invented an engine that ran off chicken manure back in 1970 or so. He made about $200K from selling his patent to an oil company. Folks talked for a bit about the revolution we would see in cars. Did it happen? Of course not because the oil companies had absolutely no incentive to produce anything other than cars that ran on a LOT of oil.

I don't want to drive this into yet another drug thread, but the case of Marihuana actually has a similar history. For all it is now considered a "gateway drug", etc. the real and true reason it was initially outlawed was due to pressure from timber and oil companies who saw hemp as competition. That's why they had to come out with those "refer madness" films back in the 50's...to make sure that everyone saw hemp as somethinge evil, and that LONG before THC levels were elevated to anything close to what we see now. (levels that now truly can "intoxicate").

[thegreekdog]

The REAL issue is that ethanol does not have to be made from nice food grains. There IS a place for some ethanol in what are truly waste products. This is NOT what is being done right now, because making ethanol from nice seed corn in cheaper. Again, that gets back to the skewing of our market to avoid real costs. Even so, ethanol will never be able to truly replace petroleum products. There is not enough waste and the things considered true waste keeps shrinking as enterprising folks find uses for those previously neglected resources.

As it happens, I've studied ethanol production (and have seen the process). Ethanol is generally produced from corn waste products, which are also used to feed animals. Thus, Player, you are incorrect. This IS what is being done right now.

I also think Nightstrike is incorrect, although only directly. Ethanol is not produced from corn that we eat, therefore it should not result in an increase in food prices. However, because ethanol is produced from corn waste products that our animals eat, increased production of ethanol could drive up animal feed prices, which drive up food prices.

[Night Strike]

The REAL issue is that ethanol does not have to be made from nice food grains. There IS a place for some ethanol in what are truly waste products. This is NOT what is being done right now, because making ethanol from nice seed corn in cheaper. Again, that gets back to the skewing of our market to avoid real costs. Even so, ethanol will never be able to truly replace petroleum products. There is not enough waste and the things considered true waste keeps shrinking as enterprising folks find uses for those previously neglected resources.

As it happens, I've studied ethanol production (and have seen the process). Ethanol is generally produced from corn waste products, which are also used to feed animals. Thus, Player, you are incorrect. This IS what is being done right now.

I also think Nightstrike is incorrect, although only directly. Ethanol is not produced from corn that we eat, therefore it should not result in an increase in food prices. However, because ethanol is produced from corn waste products that our animals eat, increased production of ethanol could drive up animal feed prices, which drive up food prices.

"Our food supply" was meant as a generic term for feeding the sources of our food, not necessarily us directly. Although in some ways, it does impact the food we eat (or could eat) directly in that the better crops have to be used to feed the stock animals instead of going into the direct-consumption supply.

[Metsfanmax]

However, burning coal and nuclear output will have to rise a bigillion % to supply the electricity for all the electric cars.

For all the complaining player does about unaccounted for costs, for some reason I never hear this one.

That's because you have never heard me giving much support for either nuclear energy OR electric cars.

And.. the problems with nuclear energy are similar to those with oil. The impacts don't effect everyone using oil today, and certainly don't impact those in charge of the companies, so they get ignored.

Player, the only way to have exactly zero impacts on everybody as far as pollution, etc. is to remove every single bit of technology we have. Sorry, but that's not going to happen, nor should it. As long as there is technology, there will be some form of pollution. You can't be against energy sources simply because it causes some sort of pollution. Look for ways to treat that pollution, not to remove the energy sources. It's a cost-benefit analysis at every level, but you can't just say "hidden costs trump everything" because that's a cop-out, not a solution. Yet that's what you do on every energy policy issue.

No. it is not what I do, it is what you like to claim I do because you refuse to accept either the depth of the problem OR the possibility of alternatives.

To begin, the whole idea of "no pollution" is simplistic to the point of nonsense. Even fully natural agents like manure (cow, pig, chicken, etc. poop) are pollution if dumped in the wrong locations or quantities. Dump it in a stream and it IS pollution, does cause very serious harm. Dump it in my garden, however, and I am very, very happy.... (provided you don't put too much in there!). I am quite capable of ensuring that it does not pollute the stream downhill from my. My neighbors -- hire Chem lawn and could care less if they kill half of my garden. (literally) as a result of mis-application of herbicides by low paid technicians. Of course, bad as that is, the average home owner over-uses herbicides and pesticides by something like 700% (or so I have read in pesticide industry reports -- when I got my application license a few years ago).

Anyway, that is the key. PROPER and EFFECTIVE utilization of resources. From the outset, it baffles me (not really, but bear with me) why business so wants to see environmentalism as "the enemy". Except.. they actually do not. More and more businesses ARE coming to recognizet that doing things in an environmentally sound manner is more cost effective for them. The problem is that our economy, our rules are absolutely skewed against the environment, against any environmental impact. About the only exception is the endangered species act and that (as much as I agree we need such legislation) often gets over-utlized or misutilized.

Let me give you a practical example. Sewage is a big issue. Know one of the most effective and cheapest ways to deal with natural effluent? A marsh! Know how many areas use this "technology"? I don't know the exact number, but very few. One of the first was installed near my alma mater (I actually worked on it, planted a good portion of it myself). It was so "groundbreaking" it won a Ford Foundation award of $100K. The same "nasty things" the Corps of engineers just spent over 50 years doing away with down south.. those same things are now prizes recognized for both their filtration capacity, birth and juvenile nursery grounds for many commercial species (and food for other commercial species),etc, etc, etc.

It is not environmentalists who are ignoring reality, thinking unsensibly or in uneconomic terms. That is the irony.

Further, you are wrong in your assumption that appropriate technology doesn't work. ... very, very wrong. There is a huge movement toward enviromentally sound engineering, business, etc. They do not get the huge funding that the chemical and gas companies get from the government, etc. However, they are making progress, despite that lack.

This is all well and good, but it doesn't respond to the point about energy usage. Nuclear power is a much more efficient source, by orders of magnitude, for energy. NS's point is that you have to accept the risks of nuclear waste pollution (which are much less important than the damage from oil drilling) if you're going to move to a different energy source. You cannot escape the problem of how to deal with the nuclear waste, but that's just a reason to find better ways to get rid of it, not a reason to reject the new energy source. It sounds like you two agree in principle, though.

[PLAYER57832]

The REAL issue is that ethanol does not have to be made from nice food grains. There IS a place for some ethanol in what are truly waste products. This is NOT what is being done right now, because making ethanol from nice seed corn in cheaper. Again, that gets back to the skewing of our market to avoid real costs. Even so, ethanol will never be able to truly replace petroleum products. There is not enough waste and the things considered true waste keeps shrinking as enterprising folks find uses for those previously neglected resources.

As it happens, I've studied ethanol production (and have seen the process). Ethanol is generally produced from corn waste products, which are also used to feed animals. Thus, Player, you are incorrect. This IS what is being done right now.

Uh... read what you just wrote. If it is being used to feed animals, it is not waste, it is part of our food production system.

I also think Nightstrike is incorrect, although only directly. Ethanol is not produced from corn that we eat, therefore it should not result in an increase in food prices. However, because ethanol is produced from corn waste products that our animals eat, increased production of ethanol could drive up animal feed prices, which drive up food prices.

Actually, greekdog, I am surprised you are saying this. There is a new plant that just went up "relatively near" here. the plan was to eventually have it use waste products. However, initially it was only able to take corn that was suitable for grain food. (note, food for animals is still food). I, too have done some research on this. Those plants that use non-food sources are few. Also, even if it is using corn , palm plants or any other natural product, that might not go directly into the food system, the land used to grow those crops is replacing food crops.

You truly do have to look at the broad picture.

[thegreekdog]

Well Player, when you put it that way, you were also correct. I rescind my last post.

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't think It's unfair for me to ask you to apply a similar standard of criticism to the groups who might stand to lose money (see how carefully I worded that).

It's not and I do apply the same standard of criticsm. Again, the difference is that no one else applies the same standard of criticism to both groups. Thus, I aim to get people to apply the same standard of criticism. It may appear that I stand with the oil companies on climate change. I do not. Rather, let's just say I stand against both groups. I stand more adamantly against the groups on one side because the only people who stand against them are climate change deniers (i.e. unreasonable people). Thus, I argue on behalf of the CCT/CBAS group.

CCT is clean coal tech, right? I'm not sure about CBAS, but I guess you're essentially positing that their is a problem and we can get out of it by investing in technology.

I'm a climate change timeline/cost-benefit analysis skeptic ("CCT/CBAS").

I positing that there is a problem and we can get out of it through our own system of capitalism. As clean technology becomes better and cheaper, other companies will invest in clean technology. I would be willing to bet there are a whole lot of oil companies that run ethanol plans. I would be willing to bet that General Electric invests a whole lot of money in clean technologies. I'm sure there are many companies that do these types of things for tax benefits (better deductions, better credits). And that's fine, although I'm not sure whether I want to be paying for those types of tax benefits (which is what we're doing - we're subsidizing clean energy).

I posit as well that although there is a problem, I do not believe that economies should suffer because of it. I don't believe that a developing African country should have to skip the industrial revolution to save the environment. I don't believe that loggers in Oregon should lose their jobs to save the environment.

I guess that makes me a climate change timeline/cost-benefit analysis skeptic ("CCT/CBAS" a.k.a. "cocked seabass").

[thegreekdog]

Let's start a usergroup!

[PLAYER57832]

This is all well and good, but it doesn't respond to the point about energy usage. Nuclear power is a much more efficient source, by orders of magnitude, for energy. NS's point is that you have to accept the risks of nuclear waste pollution (which are much less important than the damage from oil drilling) if you're going to move to a different energy source. You cannot escape the problem of how to deal with the nuclear waste, but that's just a reason to find better ways to get rid of it, not a reason to reject the new energy source. It sounds like you two agree in principle, though.

It depends on the risk. If nuclear energy is essentially a bomb that will go off in 500-1000 years, contaminating vast swaths of land, as some assert, then I would say our benefit does not justify condemning future generations, and that it is indeed reason to hold off using the technology until better answers are found.

The problem with both oil and nuclear power (and hydro, etc, etc) is that few people truly look at the whole risk, no one is forced to do so, unless by "wierdo environmentalists". I am not a luddite. Obviously, I use computers, etc. However, we will never have the push forward we need when folks are continually allowed to ignore real risk because it is not immediate, doesn't impact them directly, etc.

[Metsfanmax]

This is all well and good, but it doesn't respond to the point about energy usage. Nuclear power is a much more efficient source, by orders of magnitude, for energy. NS's point is that you have to accept the risks of nuclear waste pollution (which are much less important than the damage from oil drilling) if you're going to move to a different energy source. You cannot escape the problem of how to deal with the nuclear waste, but that's just a reason to find better ways to get rid of it, not a reason to reject the new energy source. It sounds like you two agree in principle, though.

It depends on the risk. If nuclear energy is essentially a bomb that will go off in 500-1000 years, contaminating vast swaths of land, as some assert, then I would say our benefit does not justify condemning future generations, and that it is indeed reason to hold off using the technology until better answers are found.

The problem with both oil and nuclear power (and hydro, etc, etc) is that few people truly look at the whole risk, no one is forced to do so, unless by "wierdo environmentalists". I am not a luddite. Obviously, I use computers, etc. However, we will never have the push forward we need when folks are continually allowed to ignore real risk because it is not immediate, doesn't impact them directly, etc.

Nuclear energy is not a bomb that will go off, which is why these concerns are unfounded. At any rate, I'm much more worried about the resource wars that would occur in a world where we ran out of oil without an alternative energy source.

[PLAYER57832]

I positing that there is a problem and we can get out of it through our own system of capitalism. As clean technology becomes better and cheaper, other companies will invest in clean technology. I would be willing to bet there are a whole lot of oil companies that run ethanol plans. I would be willing to bet that General Electric invests a whole lot of money in clean technologies. I'm sure there are many companies that do these types of things for tax benefits (better deductions, better credits). And that's fine, although I'm not sure whether I want to be paying for those types of tax benefits (which is what we're doing - we're subsidizing clean energy).

I posit as well that although there is a problem, I do not believe that economies should suffer because of it. I don't believe that a developing African country should have to skip the industrial revolution to save the environment. I don't believe that loggers in Oregon should lose their jobs to save the environment.

LOL... you hit on my field of expertise in that last sentance.

Actually, you hit on a point I have been trying to make all along. Specifically, that you are looking at things both too narrowly and as "either or" cases. Take Oregon loggers. What do loggers really need? They need standing timber that they can cut for the rest of their lives, and hopefully that they can then pass on to their children. What does wildlife, etc need? Standing timber. So, in reality there is no true conflict there. The conflict comes when too many loggers want to operate in the same area. In a normal business system, those factors would equal out in time. In natural resources, the time lengths are too great. White pin "cycles" in 25 years, but Dug fir (a dominant species in Oregon) probably needs more like 100 years (to be very concervative).

This long time line and lack of immediate cost-benefit feedback is why outside regulation IS necessary.

Also, you seem to be making the assumption that resources are not truly limited, that the limitations are just artificial constructs of the market. In fact, the opposite is true. Market forces don't create more natural resources, but they do make people use them up more quickly without thought.

What you say about ethanol is correct, and is yet another reason why we cannot let market forces decide this. Because the "General Electrics" (to use the company you mentioned) of the world are always more powerful, more able to control things than customers.

We do not, have not for some time lived in a true free market. We live in a consumer society that is driven by business markets. Sometimes that corrosponds with consumer needs, but only occasionally does that corrospond with humanities' needs.

[BigBallinStalin]

Let's start a usergroup!

Let's make three usergroups just to make sure.

[thegreekdog]

Let's start a usergroup!

Let's make three usergroups just to make sure.

[*] This Climate Was Invented at McGill University
[*] Players with Three Letter Acronym Names (BBS, TGD, AOG)
[*] Capitalist for the Restofit