12 replies to this topic

[ZombiCarolyn]

http://www.renewable...om-fossil-fuels

 

 

7.   There is growing global institutional belief that transition to renewables solves climate AND economy.

We’ve already seen the dire warnings about warming coming from the World Bank, and discussed the positions of Bloomberg, Citi and HSBC. These institutions are far from alone. The International Monetary Fund, in calling for “Energy Subsidy Reform,” recently calculated that between directly lowered prices, tax breaks, and the failure to properly price carbon, the world subsidized fossil fuel use by over $1.9 trillion in 2011 — or eight percent of global government revenues, representing a huge drag on economies. The United States taxpayer is fossil fuels’ largest benefactor at $502 billion in 2011. China came in second at $279 billion, and Russia was third at $116 billion. For perspective, that $502 billion is just over 3% of the US economy, currently being given away to big fossil fuels companies.

The IMF concluded that the “link between subsidies, consumption of energy, and climate change has added a new dimension to the debate on energy subsidies.”  The IMF’s solution to both economic and climate risk (as reported by The Hill) is in two simple parts: “end fossil fuel subsidies and tax carbon.”  The solution to both climate and economy is worldwide conversion from fossil fuels to renewables.

 

[Alex Wolfers]

http://www.renewable...om-fossil-fuels

 

 

7.   There is growing global institutional belief that transition to renewables solves climate AND economy.

We’ve already seen the dire warnings about warming coming from the World Bank, and discussed the positions of Bloomberg, Citi and HSBC. These institutions are far from alone. The International Monetary Fund, in calling for “Energy Subsidy Reform,” recently calculated that between directly lowered prices, tax breaks, and the failure to properly price carbon, the world subsidized fossil fuel use by over $1.9 trillion in 2011 — or eight percent of global government revenues, representing a huge drag on economies. The United States taxpayer is fossil fuels’ largest benefactor at $502 billion in 2011. China came in second at $279 billion, and Russia was third at $116 billion. For perspective, that $502 billion is just over 3% of the US economy, currently being given away to big fossil fuels companies.

The IMF concluded that the “link between subsidies, consumption of energy, and climate change has added a new dimension to the debate on energy subsidies.”  The IMF’s solution to both economic and climate risk (as reported by The Hill) is in two simple parts: “end fossil fuel subsidies and tax carbon.”  The solution to both climate and economy is worldwide conversion from fossil fuels to renewables.

I love your stance on global pollution and climate change. It's good to see someone with a brain in this world for a change.

You should consider getting into activism if you are not already.

Edited by Rose Red, 27 May 2013 - 09:48 PM.

[Dragon]

I usually don't comment on stuff like this.

I am quite surprised that we haven't seen vehicles transition from fossil fuels to bio fuels yet. I love my gasoline and diesel powered engines, but bio fuels burn much cleaner. I have watched YouTube tutorials on how to make Bio Diesel fuel. It's a really neat idea.

[Big Boss]

What is this topic even

[Alex Wolfers]

What is this topic even

Anti Pollution.

[ZombiCarolyn]

I usually don't comment on stuff like this.

I am quite surprised that we haven't seen vehicles transition from fossil fuels to bio fuels yet. I love my gasoline and diesel powered engines, but bio fuels burn much cleaner. I have watched YouTube tutorials on how to make Bio Diesel fuel. It's a really neat idea.

There are serious problems with biofuels.  For one, they require a massive amount of land, inputs, and cause serious greenhouse gas emissions.  This is a much better alternative.  (as is biking and taking public transit)

 

http://abcnews.go.co...state-near-you/

I love your stance on global pollution and climate change. It's good to see someone with a brain in this world for a change.

You should consider getting into activism if you are not already.

I am very much into this kind of activism.

I highly, highly recommend people watch this 45 documentary.  It will get you really inspired!

[Elric]

A transition to rely more on renewable resources would improve the economy as well as reduce the effects of global climate change. If we had something more effective than the Kyoto Protocol (making more of the main contributors of the pollution participate) it could help reduce global climate change. Because of the fact that there will be more focus on renewable resources, it would almost make a market for energy efficient items. We need to transition to renewable resources because global climate change is in fact affecting the environment. Because of the fact that human beings have the most control on how they affect the environment, it is almost a moral duty to protect it. I think using more of nuclear, solar, and wind power would be very productive in reducing pollution. 

Edited by Elric, 28 May 2013 - 08:18 AM.

[routerbad]

Here's the problem.  CAFE standards, or any other standards imposed by governments based on incomplete, irresponsible, or completely faked climate data actually cost us more in fuel and reduce fuel economy, creating a need for MORE investment in fossil fuels, not less.  

 

Funny how you post information that is actually full of falsehoods and cherry picking, and someone complements your brain.  Fossil fuels ARE biofuels.  Carbon is the biological element.  It's what every biological entity on the planet is created from.  I agree that there are better energy sources out there, but solar, wind, and biofuels have been around just as long and longer than fossil fuels, and none are efficient enough or powerful enough to be used regularly without supplementation from fossil fuel sources.  They've been around that long and have never been a growth market, the thought that with a little government forcing it would suddenly become a market success is silly in and of itself.  It's been tried, and tried, and tried again.  It always ends in bankruptcy and people getting screwed out of tax dollars.

 

Solar energy, as we currently know it, will never be a viable, consistent source of energy.  Wind is more dangerous to plant, animal, and human life than any other energy source, and biofuel will end up being a nonstarter simply because what we know as "biofuel" doesn't carry the same energetic potential as fossil fuels, it isn't strong enough, and no invention is efficient enough to put it to good use on a large scale.

 

Hydrogen and electric will be the eventual one two punch that allows for us to curb fossil fuel reliance, but that is still years out, the process is still too complicated and the machines too bulky and heavy for commercial use.  I like seeing research into these things, until other sources of energy that have enriched and improved countless lives gets bashed for political purposes.  Everyone needs their soapbox as it were.

[SoldMyWiiUAndLeftTheForums]

I can't belive how long it's taking governments to sort this out, we gonna run out soon or later and it's coming quick!

[ZombiCarolyn]

Here's the problem.  CAFE standards, or any other standards imposed by governments based on incomplete, irresponsible, or completely faked climate data actually cost us more in fuel and reduce fuel economy, creating a need for MORE investment in fossil fuels, not less.  

 

Funny how you post information that is actually full of falsehoods and cherry picking, and someone complements your brain.  Fossil fuels ARE biofuels.  Carbon is the biological element.  It's what every biological entity on the planet is created from.  I agree that there are better energy sources out there, but solar, wind, and biofuels have been around just as long and longer than fossil fuels, and none are efficient enough or powerful enough to be used regularly without supplementation from fossil fuel sources.  They've been around that long and have never been a growth market, the thought that with a little government forcing it would suddenly become a market success is silly in and of itself.  It's been tried, and tried, and tried again.  It always ends in bankruptcy and people getting screwed out of tax dollars.

 

Solar energy, as we currently know it, will never be a viable, consistent source of energy.  Wind is more dangerous to plant, animal, and human life than any other energy source, and biofuel will end up being a nonstarter simply because what we know as "biofuel" doesn't carry the same energetic potential as fossil fuels, it isn't strong enough, and no invention is efficient enough to put it to good use on a large scale.

 

Hydrogen and electric will be the eventual one two punch that allows for us to curb fossil fuel reliance, but that is still years out, the process is still too complicated and the machines too bulky and heavy for commercial use.  I like seeing research into these things, until other sources of energy that have enriched and improved countless lives gets bashed for political purposes.  Everyone needs their soapbox as it were.

Have you read this book?

http://en.wikipedia...._Without_Growth

Edited by ZombiCarolyn, 29 May 2013 - 01:47 PM.

[Alex Wolfers]

Yes, carbon is natural, and plants eat it.  Poop is also natural, and soil eats it.  Too much poop is bad in certain places.  Too much carbon is bad in certain places.

 

 

Oh, and this is where you got your opinion from:

 

 THE KOCH BROTHERS: FUNDING $67,042,064 TO GROUPS DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE SINCE 1997.

http://www.greenpeac...och-industries/

The Koch Brothers are thugs. I really hope someone brings up a petition against them.

[ZombiCarolyn]

I edit out all of that actually, because I realized I misread routerbad's soapbox post. 

Edited by ZombiCarolyn, 29 May 2013 - 01:59 PM.

[routerbad]

Have you read this book?

http://en.wikipedia...._Without_Growth

A feel good book about how prosperity is about rainbows, butterflies, and feeling good about yourself.  This is the real world.  Prosperity, the economic term, requires growth to reach the largest audience, without growth you have caste, all prosperity is limited to an exclusive group of people.  Something that politicians absolutely want.

 

We can still have emotional prosperity, and I think that book refers more to that than economic prosperity, tries to tie the two together, fails.  Emotional prosperity is extremely rewarding and does not require economic prosperity.

Edited by routerbad, 29 May 2013 - 02:41 PM.