David Attenborough disappointed with and sick of the USA's head in the sand attitude to global warming

[AGX-17]

U.S. Carbon Emissions Lowest Since 1994.

The invisible hand wins again. CHECK AND MATE, ENVIROTERRORISTS. Now let's cut down some mother****ing trees, America.

[Tsuga C]

The invisible hand wins again. CHECK AND MATE, ENVIROTERRORISTS. Now let's cut down some mother****ing trees, America.

Indeed, we do...and then plant yet more by a ratio of 7 or 8 to 1. Contrary to ill-informed popular opinion, we've been doing a fine job of reforesting the nation for quite some time. 

[Gorth]

I suspect the lower emissions aren't driven by economics (higher energy prices) rather than a conscious effort to improve the environment?

 

More efficient cars with lower fuel consumption, outsourcing of labour intensive/wasteful manufacturing overseas etc.

 

Not scientifically proven in any way, just a thought. Applies to more than the US though. Probably most "western" countries.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Yes, higher energy prices, fuel mileage standards, and greater use of natural gas due to fracking probably more than anything.

[licketysplit]

Habitat shmabitat. We got some politicking to do here in Merica.

[Enoch]

Yes, higher energy prices, fuel mileage standards, and greater use of natural gas due to fracking probably more than anything.

 

Mileage standards haven't moved much in a while, but the price of gasoline has changed rather a lot in the last decade or so. 

 

And, yes, the decline in domestic natural gas prices due to the fracking boom has had a huge impact-- it's fairly easy to switch a coal-fired electrical power plant over to burning natural gas instead, and natural gas burns far cleaner than coal does. 

 

 

Frankly, it's a competitive advantage for the U.S.  Due to transportation difficulties, natural gas is not the global market that petroleum is.  (I.e., there are huge variations in the price depending on where you're buying, which isn't nearly as true for a barrel of Crude.)  And cheaper domestic access to NG and related products produced through fracking spills over into other industries, like chemicals production.  It may come with some longer-term environmental costs of its own, but it's not like we were using North Dakota for anything else of note...

Edited October 23, 2013 by Enoch

[Gfted1]

U.S. Crude Oil Output Topped Imports in October For 1st Time in 18 Years - EIA.

[ShadySands]

Is that a good thing or bad thing?

[Wrath of Dagon]

Good for Texas anyway.

[alanschu]

I understand that it happens and whatnot, but in a vacuum I always enjoy the thought of oil both being imported and exported haha.

[Gfted1]

Rise! Rise from the dead...

 

Australia Scrapping Pollution Levy Marks First U-Turn on Climate.

 

Why does Australia hate our planet so much? smh

[Valsuelm]

Why does Australia hate our planet so much? smh

 

Gosh, I hope you're being sarcastic.

[Gfted1]

Lol, I am being sarcastic. I just enjoy poking the OP in the eye.

[Barothmuk]

I agree with the notion that Tony Abbot is basically a Captain Planet villain.

[Zoraptor]

Never trust a man who likes being photographed in budgie smugglers.

 

Funny thing is that if the repeal had been blocked in the senate there's no guarantee Abbot would have won a double dissolution despite winning the last election in a landslide, and recently.

[Hiro Protagonist]

I remember this thread. Did the Carbon Tax actually do anything with Climate Change in the last two years?

[ShadySands]

Dunno, seems probable they just passed on the tax to the consumer as they went on about their business as usual

 

I'm not familiar with the situation but that's just my pessimistic uninformed take

[Hiro Protagonist]

Dunno, seems probable they just passed on the tax to the consumer as they went on about their business as usual

 

Correct. Just like I said they would in the first page of this thread.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Since this thread has been resurrected, I've been wanting to post this : http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/07/10/Dr-Roy-Spencer-Science-Knows-Almost-Nothing-About-Global-Warming

[ShadySands]

Honestly, I can't say that I'm surprised that something coming out of "the world's most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change" is casting doubt on global warming/climate change/whatever we are calling it now

 

BUT really.. I mean, come on. Even if the scientists are wrong about it being bad/existing, what's wrong with investing in alternative fuels, making things more energy efficient and reducing pollution? I don't think anyone is going to argue that pollution is good or claim they like getting gallons per mile (hyperbole!) instead of the other way around. IF we can do better, then why not?

 

Disclaimer- that doesn't mean I think any and everything is a good idea like the above mentioned carbon tax which just gets handed down to the consumer or the opposite of that, paying the companies for voluntarily reducing emissions (though I did like the tax break I got for buying a hybrid and the MPG is great but the downside is that sometimes I'm not sure if my car is even on because it's so quiet)

 

I guess I'm just missing why it's so important for some for it to be wrong 

[Wrath of Dagon]

OK, so you've got both an ad hominem and a strawman argument all in the same post. Dr Spencer is a well respected climate authority, so if you're going to cast aspersions you need to challenge something he's actually said. As far as energy efficiency, reducing pollution, almost no one is against that. What reasonable people are against is the idea that fossil fuels must be eliminated as soon as possible, regardless of the cost, else the world will end.

[ShadySands]

Thanks

 

Just so I'm clear then, the desire for the prevalent belief to be wrong is fear of poor transition to and implementation of new fuel sources and not the belief itself?

[pmp10]

BUT really.. I mean, come on. Even if the scientists are wrong about it being bad/existing, what's wrong with investing in alternative fuels, making things more energy efficient and reducing pollution? I don't think anyone is going to argue that pollution is good or claim they like getting gallons per mile (hyperbole!) instead of the other way around. IF we can do better, then why not?

The problem lies with efficiency of alternative technologies.

Investment return on them is unlikely to reach the same level as fossil fuel burning.

If you refuse to believe in global warming then logically renewables are simply a waste of money.

[HoonDing]

it's 30+ degrees today, global warming sure isn't fake

[Azdeus]

OK, so you've got both an ad hominem and a strawman argument all in the same post. Dr Spencer is a well respected climate authority, so if you're going to cast aspersions you need to challenge something he's actually said. As far as energy efficiency, reducing pollution, almost no one is against that. What reasonable people are against is the idea that fossil fuels must be eliminated as soon as possible, regardless of the cost, else the world will end.

 

No, he's not a respected climate authority, he's a creationist & a crank.

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/04/review-of-spencers-great-global-warming-blunder/

 

 

 

But for me his credibility as a climate scientist was most compromised with his assertion that “it would take only one research study to cause the global warming house of cards to collapse.” So much for weighing the evidence. As Arnold Schwarzenegger said about the diversity of views of climate scientists, if your child is ill and 98 out of 100 doctors call for life-saving surgery and 2 say it is not necessary, your decision is obvious.

Edited July 18, 2014 by Azdeus