First  Prev  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next  Last
Post Reply do you believe in climate change?
11307 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 3/19/18

qwueri wrote:


Population growth has little bearing on industrial capability to curtail pollution output, beyond perhaps a drive to rapidly expand an industry at all costs.


In economics and ecology that's called a direct relationship.
qwueri 
22900 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Offline
Posted 3/19/18

karatecowboy wrote:

In economics and ecology that's called a direct relationship.


Efficiency is not inherently related to quantity. Particularly given that periods of rapid expansion are temporary at best, before production keeps pace with demand.
3937 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / BuBbLeS!
Offline
Posted 3/19/18
we'll forever be in a flux of "climate change", winter, summer... as for the darker meaning behind the forced use of word because "global warming" couldn't stick, no, we are not in a state of global warming, we're actually in a state of global cooling.
mxdan 
11675 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 3/19/18

niotabunny wrote:

we'll forever be in a flux of "climate change", winter, summer... as for the darker meaning behind the forced use of word because "global warming" couldn't stick, no, we are not in a state of global warming, we're actually in a state of global cooling.


https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02992-9

9526 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Palm Coast, Florida
Offline
Posted 3/19/18

karatecowboy wrote:

Of course. The climate is constantly changing. You can't stop it.


Yup, this. There is no way to stop naturally occurring things.
mxdan 
11675 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 3/19/18

MonoDreams wrote:


karatecowboy wrote:

Of course. The climate is constantly changing. You can't stop it.


Yup, this. There is no way to stop naturally occurring things.


How sure you are of yourself. That in itself should be a red flag.
11307 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 3/19/18

qwueri wrote:


karatecowboy wrote:

In economics and ecology that's called a direct relationship.


Efficiency is not inherently related to quantity. Particularly given that periods of rapid expansion are temporary at best, before production keeps pace with demand.


Efficiency is inherently related to quantity. It's a measure of resources or input in relation to quantity.
11307 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 3/19/18

mxdan wrote:



How sure you are of yourself. That in itself should be a red flag.


Suing the government for human rights violations takes far more confidence than typing a post on a forum; selective condemnation much?
qwueri 
22900 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Offline
Posted 3/19/18 , edited 3/19/18

karatecowboy wrote:

Efficiency is inherently related to quantity. It's a measure of resources or input in relation to quantity.


Keep in mind that we're talking about CO2 emissions. Efficiency in this case is CO2 sequestered per emissions output. That doesn't affect the raw output of production, but it does add additional overhead that has generally been handled by cap and trade. That efficiency does not (to my knowledge) affect the output.
11307 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 3/19/18

qwueri wrote:


karatecowboy wrote:

Efficiency is inherently related to quantity. It's a measure of resources or input in relation to quantity.


Keep in mind that we're talking about CO2 emissions. Efficiency in this case is CO2 sequestered per emissions output. That doesn't affect the raw output of production, but it does add additional overhead that has generally been handled by cap and trade. That efficiency does not (to my knowledge) affect the output.


OK. So let's say I'm a manager of Foo Co and we produce and sell Bars in the US region of Baz. Our Bars are considered a necessity in the region of Baz, with your average Bazian buying three Bars per fiscal year. Each Bar spends 1 hour being cooked in an electric oven, then wrapped, packaged, and shipped to retailers in the region. What God-given right am I violating of the average Bazian, who buys my product, and how am I violating it?
mxdan 
11675 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 3/19/18

karatecowboy wrote:


mxdan wrote:



How sure you are of yourself. That in itself should be a red flag.


Suing the government for human rights violations takes far more confidence than typing a post on a forum; selective condemnation much?


Did you really make that equivalence? We're talking about an individual who said that there is no way nature can be affected and a group of people suing the United States government for negligence amongst piles of evidence. The two aren't even remotely similar.
qwueri 
22900 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Offline
Posted 3/19/18 , edited 3/19/18

karatecowboy wrote:

OK. So let's say I'm a manager of Foo Co and we produce and sell Bars in the US region of Baz. Our Bars are considered a necessity in the region of Baz, with your average Bazian buying three Bars per fiscal year. Each Bar spends 1 hour being cooked in an electric oven, then wrapped, packaged, and shipped to retailers in the region. What God-given right am I violating of the average Bazian, who buys my product, and how am I violating it?


From what I understand of that write-up of the the suit, it presumes you're knowingly putting out X amount of CO2 and forgoing Y sequestration measures. At least on it's face, there's quite a few holes that can be picked in that claim on economic and legislative grounds alone. The hard part for the plaintiffs is likely going to be proving tangible harm for which the court could make a judgement on. Arguments of immigration or denying humans are capable of causing regional or global climate changes would get torpedoed by the prosecution so fast it isn't funny.
11307 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 3/19/18

mxdan wrote:



Did you really make that equivalence? We're talking about an individual who said that there is no way nature can be affected and a group of people suing the United States government for negligence amongst piles of evidence. The two aren't even remotely similar.


So, in the English language, the word "more", which I wrote, is antithetical to equality. Hence, your question is a pretty dumb one.

Also, you're jumping to conclusions about what the poster said and making a bunch of uncharitable assumptions. Super prejudiced.

So... what God-given right is being violated here, anyway?
qwueri 
22900 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Offline
Posted 3/19/18

karatecowboy wrote:

So... what God-given right is being violated here, anyway?

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-climatechange-lawsuit/u-s-loses-bid-to-halt-childrens-climate-change-lawsuit-idUSKCN1GJ2UO

Twenty-one plaintiffs, now aged 10 to 21, accused federal officials and oil industry executives of knowing for decades that carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels destabilise the climate, but refusing to do anything about it.

They said this has deprived them of their due process rights to life, liberty and property, including to live in a habitable climate.
11307 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 3/19/18

qwueri wrote:


karatecowboy wrote:

OK. So let's say I'm a manager of Foo Co and we produce and sell Bars in the US region of Baz. Our Bars are considered a necessity in the region of Baz, with your average Bazian buying three Bars per fiscal year. Each Bar spends 1 hour being cooked in an electric oven, then wrapped, packaged, and shipped to retailers in the region. What God-given right am I violating of the average Bazian, who buys my product, and how am I violating it?


From what I understand of that write-up of the the suit, it presumes you're knowingly putting out X amount of CO2 and forgoing Y sequestration measures. At least on it's face, there's quite a few holes that can be picked in that claim on economic and legislative grounds alone. The hard part for the plaintiffs is likely going to be proving tangible harm for which the court could make a judgement on. Arguments of immigration or denying humans are capable of causing regional or global climate changes would get torpedoed by the prosecution so fast it isn't funny.


OK. Makes sense. Also, the tie to God-given rights is ... humorous.
First  Prev  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.