I believe that fossil producers and consumers are locked into a kind of codependency. Thus unlike most people who either primarily blame the producers as Berman does or the consumers as you do I see the need to focus on both supply and demand.
We should demonize the fossil fuel producers and we can still recognize that ultimately as you p…
I believe that fossil producers and consumers are locked into a kind of codependency. Thus unlike most people who either primarily blame the producers as Berman does or the consumers as you do I see the need to focus on both supply and demand.
We should demonize the fossil fuel producers and we can still recognize that ultimately as you point out it is the incredible all but miraculous energy density of fossil fuels that makes their use so addictive and irresistible.
That’s why the clean energy transition will inevitably take decades and during these decades the world will increasingly suffer or unimaginable climate extremes.
Humanity was truly both incredibly blessed and cursed when fossil fuels were first discovered.
Activists, if they thought hard, realized this truism decades ago. But they went along with the charade that they could force hundreds of millions, if not billions, into "their energy lifestyle" in a matter of a few short years (e.g., we're only 6 years away from the newest "deadline" - it ain't gonna happen).
I'm glad that you see that such a transition can't happen that quickly, be it 2030, 2035, 2050, or even by 2100. And that's just the time. Few are willing to admit the MASSIVE amount of money that is required to do it. Looking around at the national debts in the developed world, there's no way those required monies can be confiscated or conjured up out of thin air.
>> What about the massive costs of not doing anything?
I was expecting that platitude/talking point. It's nonsensical. Why?
If there isn't the money, then little (by definition and necessity) will be done within the artificially constrained timelines that activist Elites keep shoving down our throats. You can't spend 10s of trillions USD if there are no trillions available in the first place. Magical thinking isn't a strategy.
And no, you just can't Eat The Rich (as Lloyd keeps saying) and say that THEY will "give" it. You might be able to confiscate $2T but that's a one time deal as you'd completely wipe out that wealth source.
Then what are you going to do - where's the rest going to come from?
And the world's total GDP was expected to be approximately $105 Trillion. So how do you think you're going to confiscate approximately 40% of everyone's income?
Only way I can figure is by an Authoritarian global governance system. Unless, of course, you have a better idea. If not, is that the kind of world you want your kids growing up in?
And do you REALLY think that China and India, or any other country for that matter, is going to relinquish their cede their Powers and allow that to happen?
The $38 trillion isn’t an estimate for the costs of transitioning to a green economy. It is the cost of NOT making the transition due to the damage from climate change.
In reviewing this again, I again see that Western activists refuse to acknowledge that China, India, and Russia are responsible for 40% of all emissions (Communist collectivist govts are like that - they don't care) making it a total waste of enforcing draconian strictures on the West.
It's still an opportunity cost at best and the article stated that incomes will go down so that is an actual cost ("such as Germany and the U.S., with a projected median income REDUCTION of 11% each and France with 13%,” ").
And to be sure, part of that $38T will still, in part, be expended in buying energy sources that are non-dispatchable (or in the case of utility grade batteries systems, dispatchable only for hours). And, I bet that will also include the environmental costs of the materials for the battery and PV manufacturing (and then recovery) and the damage to the environment from the vast land areas used for PV farms.
Cost is cost.
And remember, I've been listening to all the Enviro-Doomsquealing since before the first Earth Day - and not ONE of them have come true.
“It is the cost of NOT making the transition due to the damage from climate change“
Bullshit. Weather can’t be predicted, especially decades in advance, so any weather-related incident that WILL happen would have to be 100% ascribed to 100% human-induced climate change, and that’s simply not just unrealistic but unscientific.
Even if we could snap our fingers and immediately return atmospheric CO2 levels to that of 1850, we’d *still* be dealing with just as extreme tropical cyclones, droughts, floods, heatwaves, and every other atmospheric phenomenon.
I believe that fossil producers and consumers are locked into a kind of codependency. Thus unlike most people who either primarily blame the producers as Berman does or the consumers as you do I see the need to focus on both supply and demand.
We should demonize the fossil fuel producers and we can still recognize that ultimately as you point out it is the incredible all but miraculous energy density of fossil fuels that makes their use so addictive and irresistible.
That’s why the clean energy transition will inevitably take decades and during these decades the world will increasingly suffer or unimaginable climate extremes.
Humanity was truly both incredibly blessed and cursed when fossil fuels were first discovered.
"...will inevitably take decades"
Activists, if they thought hard, realized this truism decades ago. But they went along with the charade that they could force hundreds of millions, if not billions, into "their energy lifestyle" in a matter of a few short years (e.g., we're only 6 years away from the newest "deadline" - it ain't gonna happen).
I'm glad that you see that such a transition can't happen that quickly, be it 2030, 2035, 2050, or even by 2100. And that's just the time. Few are willing to admit the MASSIVE amount of money that is required to do it. Looking around at the national debts in the developed world, there's no way those required monies can be confiscated or conjured up out of thin air.
“Few are willing to admit the MASSIVE amount of money that is required to do it.”
What about the massive costs of not doing anything?
>> What about the massive costs of not doing anything?
I was expecting that platitude/talking point. It's nonsensical. Why?
If there isn't the money, then little (by definition and necessity) will be done within the artificially constrained timelines that activist Elites keep shoving down our throats. You can't spend 10s of trillions USD if there are no trillions available in the first place. Magical thinking isn't a strategy.
And no, you just can't Eat The Rich (as Lloyd keeps saying) and say that THEY will "give" it. You might be able to confiscate $2T but that's a one time deal as you'd completely wipe out that wealth source.
Then what are you going to do - where's the rest going to come from?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41888-1
https://apnews.com/article/climate-change-damage-economy-income-costly-3e21addee3fe328f38b771645e237ff9
Amusing - $38 Trillion a year is their stance.
And the world's total GDP was expected to be approximately $105 Trillion. So how do you think you're going to confiscate approximately 40% of everyone's income?
Only way I can figure is by an Authoritarian global governance system. Unless, of course, you have a better idea. If not, is that the kind of world you want your kids growing up in?
And do you REALLY think that China and India, or any other country for that matter, is going to relinquish their cede their Powers and allow that to happen?
Again, Magical thinking is not a strategy.
The $38 trillion isn’t an estimate for the costs of transitioning to a green economy. It is the cost of NOT making the transition due to the damage from climate change.
In reviewing this again, I again see that Western activists refuse to acknowledge that China, India, and Russia are responsible for 40% of all emissions (Communist collectivist govts are like that - they don't care) making it a total waste of enforcing draconian strictures on the West.
Why did you not address that?
It's still an opportunity cost at best and the article stated that incomes will go down so that is an actual cost ("such as Germany and the U.S., with a projected median income REDUCTION of 11% each and France with 13%,” ").
And to be sure, part of that $38T will still, in part, be expended in buying energy sources that are non-dispatchable (or in the case of utility grade batteries systems, dispatchable only for hours). And, I bet that will also include the environmental costs of the materials for the battery and PV manufacturing (and then recovery) and the damage to the environment from the vast land areas used for PV farms.
Cost is cost.
And remember, I've been listening to all the Enviro-Doomsquealing since before the first Earth Day - and not ONE of them have come true.
“It is the cost of NOT making the transition due to the damage from climate change“
Bullshit. Weather can’t be predicted, especially decades in advance, so any weather-related incident that WILL happen would have to be 100% ascribed to 100% human-induced climate change, and that’s simply not just unrealistic but unscientific.
Even if we could snap our fingers and immediately return atmospheric CO2 levels to that of 1850, we’d *still* be dealing with just as extreme tropical cyclones, droughts, floods, heatwaves, and every other atmospheric phenomenon.
Did you even read the study?
Did you not read *my* comment?