If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Age (Melbourne))   Carbon credits as a hedge bet? "These are the numbers: for a low chance - 1:5 - of exceeding 2-degrees warming, we can only emit another 565 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide by mid-century. But proven fossil fuel reserves equate to 2795 gigatonnes"   (theage.com.au) divider line 71
    More: Interesting, Bill McKibben, Mayor Mike McGinn, Naomi Klein, proven reserves, global energy, runaway climate change, economic bubble, International Energy Agency  
•       •       •

727 clicks; posted to Business » on 14 Feb 2013 at 1:49 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



71 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-02-14 10:35:51 AM
Meh.  We have technology that can deal with that.

www.filling.com
 
2013-02-14 12:46:51 PM
I'll be dead by then, not my problem.
 
2013-02-14 01:02:51 PM

basemetal: I'll be dead by then, not my problem.


Yeah, at this point I don't plan on having any kids so I don't give a shiat. Just stop acting like global warming isn't a real thing just because acknowledging it might hit your pocketbook or because you're a Republican and you have to agree with whatever they say.
 
2013-02-14 02:26:26 PM
I've already put a lot of carbon dioxide up there from laughing so hard.
 
2013-02-14 02:39:52 PM
So what.

I say bring on the global warming. Let those affected adjust.
 
2013-02-14 02:56:10 PM
Hey the ocean will be closer to my house!

Hopefully that brings down seafood prices.
 
2013-02-14 02:57:13 PM
''Either we pay attention, or we engage in the most incredible collective denial that human beings have ever engaged in.''


incredible collective denial in 3...2....1....
 
2013-02-14 03:09:09 PM
The wife and I pledge to stop using fossil fuels in any form.  We will no longer heat our house, cook our food, drive a car (gas or electric since both ultimately depend on fossil fuel).  In addition we will avoid any product that in any way involves the use of fossil fuel in its manufacture or transportation to us.  Nothing made of wood, metal, plastic, glass, paper will grace our lives.  We promise to live in a cave, wear animal skins, and eat only what can be grown or caught without machinery.  Since burning wood merely replaces CO2 that it has sequestered during a tree's lifetime we feel good about cooking and heating with a wood fire.

Back to the stone age with us.  It's a small price to pay to mollify the 'man-caused' global warming faction.
 
2013-02-14 03:16:34 PM
Here is the original Rolling Stone article mentioned.

Link
 
2013-02-14 03:19:59 PM

RDean: Back to the stone age with us. It's a small price to pay to mollify the 'man-caused' global warming faction.


Hurr durr.  http://www.wunderground.com/climate/facts.asp
 
2013-02-14 03:33:03 PM

RDean: The wife and I pledge to stop using fossil fuels in any form.  We will no longer heat our house, cook our food, drive a car (gas or electric since both ultimately depend on fossil fuel).  In addition we will avoid any product that in any way involves the use of fossil fuel in its manufacture or transportation to us.  Nothing made of wood, metal, plastic, glass, paper will grace our lives.  We promise to live in a cave, wear animal skins, and eat only what can be grown or caught without machinery.  Since burning wood merely replaces CO2 that it has sequestered during a tree's lifetime we feel good about cooking and heating with a wood fire.

Back to the stone age with us.  It's a small price to pay to mollify the 'man-caused' global warming faction.


Well, good luck with all that....
 
2013-02-14 03:36:51 PM

RDean: Back to the stone age with us. It's a small price to pay to mollify the 'man-caused' global warming faction.


Being a dick about the issue, I guess that's one way to go.
 
2013-02-14 04:03:23 PM

btchin trans-am: RDean: Back to the stone age with us. It's a small price to pay to mollify the 'man-caused' global warming faction.

Hurr durr.  http://www.wunderground.com/climate/facts.asp


You're not going to have your first-world conveniences like food magically appearing at the grocery store unless there's massive and radical technological advances.
 
2013-02-14 04:08:21 PM

RDean: Nothing made of wood, metal, plastic, glass, paper will grace our lives.


Good.  Leave the internet and never return.
 
2013-02-14 04:20:05 PM

Shazam999: You're not going to have your first-world conveniences like food magically appearing at the grocery store unless there's massive and radical technological advances.



In what respect?

8% of fossil fuels are used for agricultural purposes.
An additional 2% is used for all rail/boat sources. The percentage used for transporting foodstuffs is a fraction of that.
 
2013-02-14 04:23:14 PM

Cubicle Jockey: Shazam999: You're not going to have your first-world conveniences like food magically appearing at the grocery store unless there's massive and radical technological advances.


In what respect?

8% of fossil fuels are used for agricultural purposes.
An additional 2% is used for all rail/boat sources. The percentage used for transporting foodstuffs is a fraction of that.


I was giving an example.
 
2013-02-14 04:28:11 PM
img.photobucket.com

Impressed with 1.21 gigatonnes
 
2013-02-14 04:47:12 PM
Bwah-HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Hey grandpa, what's for dinner!?
Carbon credits for the rich to trade, that's what!

/Like they're really going to leave that fossil fuel in the ground as long as there's a dime to be made.
//70 percent of American fossil fuel = used by cars and trucks.
 
2013-02-14 04:53:43 PM
FTA: "... America's fastest growing social movement: ''Go Fossil Free'', a nation-wide blitz calling for universities, governments and churches to freeze new investments in fossil fuel assets ..."

Never heard of it. Really.

/What happens when Exxon buys all the carbon credits?
//They actually think not buying stock in these companies will stop them from burning fossil fuels.
 
2013-02-14 04:59:08 PM
On the bright side a good percentage of the proven reserves will be sequested in plastics.
 
2013-02-14 05:00:28 PM

RDean: The wife and I pledge to stop using fossil fuels in any form.  We will no longer heat our house, cook our food, drive a car (gas or electric since both ultimately depend on fossil fuel).  In addition we will avoid any product that in any way involves the use of fossil fuel in its manufacture or transportation to us.  Nothing made of wood, metal, plastic, glass, paper will grace our lives.  We promise to live in a cave, wear animal skins, and eat only what can be grown or caught without machinery.  Since burning wood merely replaces CO2 that it has sequestered during a tree's lifetime we feel good about cooking and heating with a wood fire.

Back to the stone age with us.  It's a small price to pay to mollify the 'man-caused' global warming faction.


Thanks for taking the time to write that out.
/Saved me the trouble.
//People are farking idiots.
 
2013-02-14 05:04:43 PM

Mugato: RDean: Back to the stone age with us. It's a small price to pay to mollify the 'man-caused' global warming faction.

Being a dick about the issue, I guess that's one way to go.


Seriously? To stop the warming, the AGW crowd believes that in order to stop the warming, we will have to stop doing everything upon which the present global economy is based.
Some people just want to see shiat burn and others suffer.
Fark that and fark them.
 
2013-02-14 05:13:49 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Seriously? To stop the warming, the AGW crowd believes that in order to stop the warming, we will have to stop doing everything upon which the present global economy is based.
Some people just want to see shiat burn and others suffer.
Fark that and fark them.


None of this is true.

1) Nothing we do will stop the warming, at least not in the short term. Nobody has proposed any way to stop the warming completely. People only hope to control it and limit it to a few degrees by the end of the century.

2) There is no "AGW crowd" that I'm aware of. I don't know who you're referring to. That's kind of like referring to a "general relativity crowd."

3) None of the proposals involve stopping "everything upon which the global economy is based." All of the proposals I've seen are fairly modest.

4) One could argue that the people who want to increase greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are the ones that want to see shiat burn, not the ones looking to decrease it.
 
2013-02-14 05:30:11 PM
Given the topic, TFA should be under the Politics tab.
 
2013-02-14 05:39:08 PM
What's that in tons?
 
2013-02-14 06:37:38 PM
I don't know if humans are the sole cause of global warming but I do think we are a contributing factor (maybe even the most contributing factor). Heat is the lowest form of energy and all other forms of energy eventually become heat. So when you consider the immense amount of energy that humans create each year (fossil fuels, nuclear, hydro-electric, etc.) it is very reasonable to infer that it could have an effect on global temperature. It is an observable fact that the temperature around major population centers is a degree or two warmer than the surrounding countryside.

Global warming, ozone holes, pollution, deforestation, resource depletion and any other global evil you can think of are all seen as current problems, but they are really symptoms of overpopulation and we need to get that under control and, ideally, reduce it to about half of what it is right now. If we can't do that then everything else we try will only delay the inevitable. Our population doubles about every 50 years so if we reduce pollution, resource utilization, energy consumption, etc. per person to 1/2 of what it is today (which probably isn't doable) over the next 50 years the net effect on the planet will be zero.

So, with the most stringent conservation measures we can hope to achieve, over the next 50 years CO2 production, pollution, resource depletion, and all the other shiat that goes with having too many people will remain at today's levels, and that's the best we can hope for. If we can solve our population problem all the other problems (symptoms) will go away, if we can't - they won't.

Since this probably won't happen, we as a species are truly farked (ironically because we can't stop farking).
 
2013-02-14 06:38:10 PM

RDean: Since burning wood merely replaces CO2 that it has sequestered during a tree's lifetime we feel good about cooking and heating with a wood fire.


Isn't this statement just as true if you replace "tree's" with "earth's" and "wood" with "oil"?
 
2013-02-14 08:23:51 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: FTA: "... America's fastest growing social movement: ''Go Fossil Free'', a nation-wide blitz calling for universities, governments and churches to freeze new investments in fossil fuel assets ..."

Never heard of it. Really.

/What happens when Exxon buys all the carbon credits?
//They actually think not buying stock in these companies will stop them from burning fossil fuels.



They do think that. Environmentalists rarely have much of an understanding of economics.

The economics here are simple: as long as the energy in the ground is cheaper than other energy sources, every recoverable bit of it will be burned. Requiring carbon credits doesn't solve the problem unless the requirements are global; the Kyoto Protocol, for example, excludes China and the developing world. If implemented, all they mean is that the same amount of oil will be burned over a longer time in places where it's cheaper to consume these fuels. Carbon caps can work if they're globally enforced and expensive enough to make oil/coal expensive than "renewables" like wind and solar, but are people prepared for energy to be several times more expensive than it is today?

If you really want to keep CO2 out of the atmosphere, you'll have to make the right economic incentives for it to be captured and sequestered. If doing so pays well enough, even China will do it. Alternately, support technologies like nuclear that can drive costs low enough to actually displace fossil fuels.
 
2013-02-14 08:50:51 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: FTA: "... America's fastest growing social movement: ''Go Fossil Free'', a nation-wide blitz calling for universities, governments and churches to freeze new investments in fossil fuel assets ..."

Never heard of it. Really.

/What happens when Exxon buys all the carbon credits?
//They actually think not buying stock in these companies will stop them from burning fossil fuels.


It's not about making a difference or helping fix the problem; it's about that smug sense of superiority.
 
2013-02-14 08:52:19 PM

jack21221: HotIgneous Intruder: Seriously? To stop the warming, the AGW crowd believes that in order to stop the warming, we will have to stop doing everything upon which the present global economy is based.
Some people just want to see shiat burn and others suffer.
Fark that and fark them.

None of this is true.

1) Nothing we do will stop the warming, at least not in the short term. Nobody has proposed any way to stop the warming completely. People only hope to control it and limit it to a few degrees by the end of the century.

2) There is no "AGW crowd" that I'm aware of. I don't know who you're referring to. That's kind of like referring to a "general relativity crowd."

3) None of the proposals involve stopping "everything upon which the global economy is based." All of the proposals I've seen are fairly modest.

4) One could argue that the people who want to increase greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are the ones that want to see shiat burn, not the ones looking to decrease it.


If you're not aware of who the "AGW crowd" is, you can be pretty sure you're in it. Your points are contradictory at best.
 
2013-02-14 08:53:02 PM

Ishkur: I don't know if humans are the sole cause of global warming but I do think we are a contributing factor (maybe even the most contributing factor). Heat is the lowest form of energy and all other forms of energy eventually become heat. So when you consider the immense amount of energy that humans create each year (fossil fuels, nuclear, hydro-electric, etc.) it is very reasonable to infer that it could have an effect on global temperature. It is an observable fact that the temperature around major population centers is a degree or two warmer than the surrounding countryside.

Global warming, ozone holes, pollution, deforestation, resource depletion and any other global evil you can think of are all seen as current problems, but they are really symptoms of overpopulation and we need to get that under control and, ideally, reduce it to about half of what it is right now. If we can't do that then everything else we try will only delay the inevitable. Our population doubles about every 50 years so if we reduce pollution, resource utilization, energy consumption, etc. per person to 1/2 of what it is today (which probably isn't doable) over the next 50 years the net effect on the planet will be zero.

So, with the most stringent conservation measures we can hope to achieve, over the next 50 years CO2 production, pollution, resource depletion, and all the other shiat that goes with having too many people will remain at today's levels, and that's the best we can hope for. If we can solve our population problem all the other problems (symptoms) will go away, if we can't - they won't.

Since this probably won't happen, we as a species are truly farked (ironically because we can't stop farking).


Wow a Malthusian, like five or more decades after that nonsense was clearly debunked. Maybe you should update the nonsense you believe to something debunked more recently?
 
2013-02-14 08:56:51 PM
P.T. Barnum was so right.  You can convince morons of anything, even something as stupid as global warming.
 
2013-02-14 09:29:32 PM

elk-tamer: If you're not aware of who the "AGW crowd" is, you can be pretty sure you're in it. Your points are contradictory at best.


Which points contradict one another? Please be specific.
 
2013-02-14 09:37:38 PM

xria: Wow a Malthusian, like five or more decades after that nonsense was clearly debunked. Maybe you should update the nonsense you believe to something debunked more recently?


What's a Malthusian?

Are you disputing the fact that overpopulation leads to higher consumption of energy/carbon which contributes to climate change, especially when we are on the cusp of adding 2.2 billion people to first world consumption levels? .....why?
 
2013-02-14 09:48:15 PM

jack21221: elk-tamer: If you're not aware of who the "AGW crowd" is, you can be pretty sure you're in it. Your points are contradictory at best.

Which points contradict one another? Please be specific.

 People only hope to control it and limit it to a few degrees by the end of the century.
vs.
 All of the proposals I've seen are fairly modest.


In the article it gives the numbers required to limit warming to a few degrees. 565 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide by mid-century call that 2050.
2050-2013 = 37.
565(Gt/y) / 37y  = 15.3 Gt per year.
2008 was 30 Gt/year.

So, the "modest proposal" would require cutting back economic to 1/2 2008 levels, and never expanding.

Would you not agree that those are a contradiction( and that you're in the AGW crowd, maybe even a tshirt or something?)
 
2013-02-14 09:54:59 PM

Ishkur: Heat is the lowest form of energy and all other forms of energy eventually become heat.


Oh god, please expound on this point.  I'm wondering how the nutjobs defined it.
 
2013-02-14 10:12:01 PM

elk-tamer: So, the "modest proposal" would require cutting back economic to 1/2 2008 levels, and never expanding.

Would you not agree that those are a contradiction( and that you're in the AGW crowd, maybe even a tshirt or something?)


I really wish you spoke English, because it's difficult to parse what you're saying.

You're conflating carbon emissions with economic activity. Care to expand on that?
 
2013-02-14 10:16:50 PM

DrPainMD: It's not about making a difference or helping fix the problem; it's about that smug sense of superiority.


Oh, well, I'm glad YOU'RE not suffering from that, aren't you? You're so much better than them.
 
2013-02-14 10:23:16 PM

jack21221: elk-tamer: So, the "modest proposal" would require cutting back economic to 1/2 2008 levels, and never expanding.

Would you not agree that those are a contradiction( and that you're in the AGW crowd, maybe even a tshirt or something?)

I really wish you spoke English, because it's difficult to parse what you're saying.

You're conflating carbon emissions with economic activity. Care to expand on that?


If you really believe that reducing carbon emissions won't reduce economic output, why don't you just say that? It will save me some effort.
 
2013-02-14 10:48:20 PM

Lsherm: Oh god, please expound on this point. I'm wondering how the nutjobs defined it.


When you say "nutjobs", do you mean the Creationists who think The Laws of Thermodynamics are false?
 
2013-02-14 11:52:26 PM
There's only so much fossil fuel in the ground.  We don't know how much, only that no significant amount will be replaced within the next several 107 years or so.  The good-quality, easily-recoverable petroleum is already mostly gone.  We're drilling in the ocean, digging up tar sands, leveling mountains and pumping poison into the ground to get what remains.

Global warming or no, the oil is going to run dry someday.  Perhaps no one reading this will live to see it happen.  Even so, we're going to end up using less fuel and using renewables sooner or later.  Yes, it'll be painful and expensive.  It'll be even more painful and expensive once oil is $200/bbl and even the Magic Kingdom is tapped out.
 
2013-02-14 11:56:29 PM

elk-tamer: jack21221: elk-tamer: So, the "modest proposal" would require cutting back economic to 1/2 2008 levels, and never expanding.

Would you not agree that those are a contradiction( and that you're in the AGW crowd, maybe even a tshirt or something?)

I really wish you spoke English, because it's difficult to parse what you're saying.

You're conflating carbon emissions with economic activity. Care to expand on that?

If you really believe that reducing carbon emissions won't reduce economic output, why don't you just say that? It will save me some effort.


Reducing carbon emissions won't reduce economic output by nearly as much as you think, if at all.  The person I was responding to in the thread said something about "stop doing everything." Another person said something about "returning to the stone age." This hyperbole is not justified.

So, let me go down a list of some proposals that have been made, and I want you to explain how they reduce economic output.

1) Carbon capture and sequestration. At the moment, this isn't feasible because it would increase the price of coal energy, but research and development of this technology is ongoing to bring the price down.

2) Renewable energy such as wind, solar, and hydroelectric. There exist companies which exist solely to manufacture and sell these products, so they're INCREASING economic output, not decreasing it. At the moment, these are not as cost efficient as oil and coal, but the gap is closing.

3) Better gas mileage on cars/electric vehicles. Again, this is an area where car manufacturers get to innovate, increasing economic output.

So tell me, do you really think these technological innovations are going to send us back to the stone age?
 
2013-02-15 12:04:41 AM
Eh. What harm will setting 500 gigatons of material on fire do?
 
2013-02-15 12:49:10 AM

jack21221: elk-tamer: jack21221: elk-tamer: So, the "modest proposal" would require cutting back economic to 1/2 2008 levels, and never expanding.

Would you not agree that those are a contradiction( and that you're in the AGW crowd, maybe even a tshirt or something?)

I really wish you spoke English, because it's difficult to parse what you're saying.

You're conflating carbon emissions with economic activity. Care to expand on that?

If you really believe that reducing carbon emissions won't reduce economic output, why don't you just say that? It will save me some effort.

Reducing carbon emissions won't reduce economic output by nearly as much as you think, if at all.  The person I was responding to in the thread said something about "stop doing everything." Another person said something about "returning to the stone age." This hyperbole is not justified.

So, let me go down a list of some proposals that have been made, and I want you to explain how they reduce economic output.

1) Carbon capture and sequestration. At the moment, this isn't feasible because it would increase the price of coal energy, but research and development of this technology is ongoing to bring the price down.

2) Renewable energy such as wind, solar, and hydroelectric. There exist companies which exist solely to manufacture and sell these products, so they're INCREASING economic output, not decreasing it. At the moment, these are not as cost efficient as oil and coal, but the gap is closing.

3) Better gas mileage on cars/electric vehicles. Again, this is an area where car manufacturers get to innovate, increasing economic output.

So tell me, do you really think these technological innovations are going to send us back to the stone age?


Are you bringing up someone else's comment about the stone age because you're admitting that your earlier statements were contradictory? Let's finish that off before I point out how stupid this last post is.
 
2013-02-15 12:50:52 AM

elk-tamer: Are you bringing up someone else's comment about the stone age because you're admitting that your earlier statements were contradictory? Let's finish that off before I point out how stupid this last post is.


You're not making any sense at all. My very Weeners was to those talking about the stone age. You're the one jumping from place to place not answering questions.

I don't know why I bother arguing with children.
 
2013-02-15 12:51:27 AM
Lol, I suspected the filter would get me. Translate that as "the very first time I responded."
 
2013-02-15 01:18:40 AM

jack21221: elk-tamer: Are you bringing up someone else's comment about the stone age because you're admitting that your earlier statements were contradictory? Let's finish that off before I point out how stupid this last post is.

You're not making any sense at all. My very Weeners was to those talking about the stone age. You're the one jumping from place to place not answering questions.

I don't know why I bother arguing with children.


As long as I've helped you to grasp that limiting CO2 production isn't going to happen without stifling economic output, I'm satisfied.

This really is the worst one though:
3) Better gas mileage on cars/electric vehicles. Again, this is an area where car manufacturers get to innovate, increasing economic output.
 Mainly because the carbon cost of the new vehicles far outweighs the improved gas mileage. None of you AGW group people should be driving, period.
 
2013-02-15 03:50:06 AM

xria: Wow a Malthusian, like five or more decades after that nonsense was clearly debunked. Maybe you should update the nonsense you believe to something debunked more recently?


Debunked, you say? Bullsh*t. The population bomb people just didn't take all the data into account. There is a limit to the sheer number of people this planet can sustain. No matter how many technological advances we make, there will always be that maximum capacity. We don't know what that number is, because we don't know what the limits of technology are. If we can get near 100% efficiency out of every system, the number will probably be pretty high. Whether we ever reach that population limit is open to speculation. Last I heard, we were estimated to top out at about 10B, then fall to about 6B. We feed 7B right now, right? Well, sort of. We cheat to feed 7B. We're using stored-up energy from millions of years in the past to fertilize our crops, and to power the machinery needed to grow them and transport them. We're using water from aquifers laid down at the end of the last Ice Age to water them. Those waters are getting pretty close to gone. What happens when we run out of fossil fuel? There aren't enough rare earths out there to make solar panels. There aren't enough big-ass rivers to dam for hydro. There aren't enough places to store nuclear waste to switch to nuke for all. Hell, there might not even be enough copper out there for the wiring. There is a limit. Our job is not to dismiss that idea. Our job is to try to figure out how our planet can sustain us for the forseeable future. We suck at that job.
 
2013-02-15 03:55:16 AM

HighZoolander: ''Either we pay attention, or we engage in the most incredible collective denial that human beings have ever engaged in.''


Well... outside of the deniers of 'We aren't going to live forever in an afterlife and there is no invisible sky wizard taking notes on how many times you spanked it and didn't ask for forgiveness'-ism.
 
2013-02-15 04:32:50 AM
Electric cars, continued efficiency product lines, and increased contribution from solar, wind, and nuclear, which are renewable with no drawbacks, renewable with few drawbacks, and extremely easy to dispose of the waste for if congress would stop the fearmongering/farking around respectively.

The solutions here aren't really complex or beyond our technical or industrial grasp at this point.  Not only that, at current tech levels they're not even extremely expensive at national scales, just moderately expensive at worst.
 
Displayed 50 of 71 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report