Green World Rising - Interesting and Scary Video

[ZiprHead]

A very interesting and scary (short) video available here:

http://www.greenworldrising.org/

What do you think?

 

[untermensche]

The question is, what are people willing to do without?

Are they willing to do without electricity in their homes?

Are they willing to give up their cars?

 

[ZiprHead]

The question is, what are people willing to do without?

Are they willing to do without electricity in their homes?

Are they willing to give up their cars?

Personally, I do not think that is the alternative. There are many ways to produce electricity without carbon producing methods. My brother is, at the moment, considering getting a system that would take his home completely off the grid. This is in northern lower Michigan. Cost is prohibitive though but tax incentives could be used to encourage such systems instead of subsidizing carbon emitting systems.

It's a matter of priorities.

 

[TV and credit cards]

If you as a climate scientist knew it was too late, that we cannot stop what has been set in motion, what would you do? Keep pushing the narrative I would think. We're never going to get the notice that it's too late.

It's all well and good for a city like Boulder to institute a carbon tax but all it takes is the stroke of the pen of the wrong governor with his supporting minions to undo it.

Perhaps when California can no longer grow crops we'll get it. Nothing's more real than a grocery bill. I'm not one for praying but I sure hope the Sierra Nevada gets a good snow pack this winter.

 

[Derec]

The question is, what are people willing to do without?

Are they willing to do without electricity in their homes?

Are they willing to give up their cars?

And that's the stupidity of radical environmentalism.
Also the "keep the carbon in the ground" business. World will need carbon sources of energy for several more decades at least. What "keep the carbon in the ground" means in practice is that North American ecomentalists fight against local projects (see anti-Keystone XL/Alberta oil sands activism) while ignoring carbon projects in the Arab countries, Russia, Venezuela, Nigeria, etc., most of which are much more polluting than Canadian oil sands. Opposition to pipelines has the further effect of shifting transport to the rail, increasing cost, energy necessary to move the oil, the risk of accidents as well as taking up rail capacity from other uses, like moving grain.
In effect, many radical environmentalists are "water melons", green on the outside, red on the inside. They are using environmentalism to preach against capitalism/market economy itself.

From the recent "People's climate change march" (even the name invokes socialism/communism):

From a protest in Melbourne in 2009:

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I watched their first video. It would help if it were based in reality rather than hype.

1) 2 degrees isn't catastrophic.

2) Carbon taxes are worthless unless the big emitters sign on. I note they said nothing about India. They claimed China has a carbon tax but their emissions are worse than ours and rising faster--if they have something it's not meaningful.

3) Renewables are not ready to take over the load. The problem is storage, there are simply no good answers at present. If you want a zero-carbon economy the renewable component with current tech is minimal. The only way we can do it is nuclear. At present renewables can take a bit off the demand, that's all. In the areas with the highest penetration the power companies are already putting their foot down because of this--they are not permitting new rooftop solar installations because the grid can't handle it. With current tech the best we can hope for is to replace most (not all) oil & gas generation with renewables. Unpredictable power (solar & wind) is of basically zero value in lowering the load on coal or nuclear plants.

You need 1GW of power. You have a 1GW coal plant and try to green things up by adding 1GW of solar. Reality: Your coal use doesn't drop, although you have 1GW of unreliable power that could be used for tasks that can be turned on and off as needed.

4) Many of their pictures of "pollution" are of cooling towers. Those white clouds are simply that--clouds. Plain old H₂O.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

1) 2 degrees isn't catastrophic.

Do you know enough about climate science to be able to say this with confidence? Because I don't, that's why I'm asking.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) 2 degrees isn't catastrophic.

Do you know enough about climate science to be able to say this with confidence? Because I don't, that's why I'm asking.

2 degrees of warming won't be fun but it won't be catastrophic. It's 6 degrees that's normally presented as catastrophic.

 

[untermensche]

The question is, what are people willing to do without?

Are they willing to do without electricity in their homes?

Are they willing to give up their cars?

Personally, I do not think that is the alternative. There are many ways to produce electricity without carbon producing methods. My brother is, at the moment, considering getting a system that would take his home completely off the grid. This is in northern lower Michigan. Cost is prohibitive though but tax incentives could be used to encourage such systems instead of subsidizing carbon emitting systems.

It's a matter of priorities.

That's fine. But are people willing to do it in the numbers necessary to make a difference?

This crisis is driven by two factors. The greed of the people extracting the oil and the unwillingness of people to give up certain luxuries.

The greed is unbounded. There is nothing to do about it. The most greedy get into positions where they can exercise that greed.

The only thing that really can be done is for people to stand up and say they aren't going to participate.

But sheep don't stand up and refuse to participate. And if they don't they deserve to go to the slaughterhouse.