6 ms·

"At this point many extreme climate change activists want to send the world back to the 1700's level of technology" Really, who? I can't see the people in the

"At this point many extreme climate change activists want to send the world back to the 1700's level of technology" Really, who? I can't see the people in the 18th century using PV (or much electricity at all for that matter). I think the real problem is that people somehow believe "the economy" is more important than the environment. Destroying "the economy" would have little to no effect at all on about two thirds of the world's population. Fixing (and preserving) the environment will have an enormous benefit to the entire world population, with the exception of the very small number of people who currently profit from treating the environment as an infinite resource, or a static back-drop to our own civilization.

Alphasite_ 13y ago
How on earth can you make such absurd statements without the smallest shred of evidence? I'm not interested in arguing with you, but unsubstantiated claims are worse than useless.
- Intermernet 13y ago
  Which claim would you like me to substantiate? I'm not sure which of my statements you regard as "absurd".
twoodfin 13y ago
Destroying "the economy" would have little to no effect at all on about two thirds of the world's population. I don't think you have a good grasp of how interdependent almost all modern national economies are today, regardless of their current size or per capita GDP. There is an almost inconceivably huge difference in aggregate quality of life (especially for the poorest!) between a 2100 that saw a century with 3.5% global annual real "gross world product" growth and one where growth averaged 2.5%. Some back of the envelope calculation tells me it's a choice between a global economy worth ~$620T and one that's worth ~$1460T. You can pay for a lot of amelioration when your economy is that big, and still have a bunch left over to make people's lives so much better than they'd have in an economy less than half as productive. Obviously there is a potentially serious downside to emissions growth that goes along with that economic growth. But the consequences of even moderately throttling the world economy to deal with it have huge costs that can't be waved away.
- Intermernet 13y ago
  You're conflating the amount of money involved with the number of people involved. This rarely works for global situations. The land-owners of the Alberta Oil Sands (last I heard the Koch brothers were #1 in this regard) have little or no incentive to put the money they make back into the Alberta community. They almost certainly have some token gesture scheme in place that will provide <1% of the profit to local funding, but that's just PR spin. You can look at the money, or the people. As of October 2013 (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population) 10 countries had 58% of the world's population. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_economy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_economy it can be calculated that 64.67% of the money (by GDP) is controlled by 4 countries. The population growth is decreasing due to (mainly) education. The disparity in the distribution of wealth is only growing greater. Those in the USA and Europe should realize that this isn't happening in their favour. In 2000, the USA was 22.61% of the world's GDP with China at 4.62%. The estimate for the next 6 years puts China at 26.79% and the USA at 15.45%. Try telling the billions of people in the world living hand to mouth that the actions of some for-profit corporation will mean that they see an improvement in their quality of life. EDIT: See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IMF_Developing_Countries_Map,_2014_(revised).png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IMF_Developing_Countries_M... for an illustration of what the IMF refers to as "developing countries". This should give you an idea of the amount of the planet that isn't a "player" in the world economy.
  - twoodfin 13y ago
    Try telling the billions of people in the world living hand to mouth that the actions of some for-profit corporation will mean that they see an improvement in their quality of life. Hundreds of millions of people in China who would have been living hand to mouth a few decades ago are now living much fuller, longer, happier lives because their nation provided cheap labor and manufacturing for "some for-profit corporation[s]". A global economy half today's size couldn't have supported them in that way, and a global economy of 2100 cut in half by lower growth rates will have many more relatively poor people. I'm not sure what the Koch brothers have to do with that. Your argument does not appear to coherently respond to what I wrote.
the_ancient 13y ago
if tomorrow a law was passed the said only PV could be used to produce electricity, rates would sky rocket 3 to 5 times what they are today, the net effect of that would be that the vast majority of the population would not longer be able to afford electricity for their homes. Not to mention the price of goods would sky rocket leaving the vast majority of the population unable to buy anything beyond basic food stuffs if they could afford that. Entire Industries would collapse, which I am sure your fine with because less pollution. So most people would be using Candles for light, and walking to their jobs (if they had jobs) etc You seems to thing we can just switch to wind/solar/... with no effects on industry, prices, or quality of life. Everything would just be peachy and we will all sing kumbaya in the streets
- Intermernet 13y ago
  The vast majority of the population are already unable to afford electricity for their homes, and the price of goods (for them) is so dynamic due to local supply and demand that there is no guarantee that they can afford basic food stuffs. Yes, entire industries will collapse. This has happened before (Indian slavery by the East India Company?), most would say we're better off for it.
  - the_ancient 13y ago
    Thank you for proving my point....
- geoka9 13y ago
  > walking to their jobs See nothing wrong with that. Unless we're talking much more than 5 kilometers and/or the job is physically strenuous.
  - the_ancient 13y ago
    I live 20 miles (32km) one way from my job on a busy highway. That is about average for people in America.. 16 miles 1 way, 32 miles each day.
the_ancient 13y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw5Lda06iK0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw5Lda06iK0
- Intermernet 13y ago
  You'd do well not to listen to an actor about climate change. http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/09/my-advice-to-topher-field-take-money.html http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/09/my-advice-to-topher-field...

Alphasite_ 13y ago

How on earth can you make such absurd statements without the smallest shred of evidence? I'm not interested in arguing with you, but unsubstantiated claims are worse than useless.

Intermernet 13y ago
Which claim would you like me to substantiate? I'm not sure which of my statements you regard as "absurd".

twoodfin 13y ago

Destroying "the economy" would have little to no effect at all on about two thirds of the world's population. I don't think you have a good grasp of how interdependent almost all modern national economies are today, regardless of their current size or per capita GDP. There is an almost inconceivably huge difference in aggregate quality of life (especially for the poorest!) between a 2100 that saw a century with 3.5% global annual real "gross world product" growth and one where growth averaged 2.5%. Some back of the envelope calculation tells me it's a choice between a global economy worth ~$620T and one that's worth ~$1460T. You can pay for a lot of amelioration when your economy is that big, and still have a bunch left over to make people's lives so much better than they'd have in an economy less than half as productive. Obviously there is a potentially serious downside to emissions growth that goes along with that economic growth. But the consequences of even moderately throttling the world economy to deal with it have huge costs that can't be waved away.

Intermernet 13y ago
You're conflating the amount of money involved with the number of people involved. This rarely works for global situations. The land-owners of the Alberta Oil Sands (last I heard the Koch brothers were #1 in this regard) have little or no incentive to put the money they make back into the Alberta community. They almost certainly have some token gesture scheme in place that will provide <1% of the profit to local funding, but that's just PR spin. You can look at the money, or the people. As of October 2013 (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population) 10 countries had 58% of the world's population. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_economy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_economy it can be calculated that 64.67% of the money (by GDP) is controlled by 4 countries. The population growth is decreasing due to (mainly) education. The disparity in the distribution of wealth is only growing greater. Those in the USA and Europe should realize that this isn't happening in their favour. In 2000, the USA was 22.61% of the world's GDP with China at 4.62%. The estimate for the next 6 years puts China at 26.79% and the USA at 15.45%. Try telling the billions of people in the world living hand to mouth that the actions of some for-profit corporation will mean that they see an improvement in their quality of life. EDIT: See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IMF_Developing_Countries_Map,_2014_(revised).png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IMF_Developing_Countries_M... for an illustration of what the IMF refers to as "developing countries". This should give you an idea of the amount of the planet that isn't a "player" in the world economy.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  Try telling the billions of people in the world living hand to mouth that the actions of some for-profit corporation will mean that they see an improvement in their quality of life. Hundreds of millions of people in China who would have been living hand to mouth a few decades ago are now living much fuller, longer, happier lives because their nation provided cheap labor and manufacturing for "some for-profit corporation[s]". A global economy half today's size couldn't have supported them in that way, and a global economy of 2100 cut in half by lower growth rates will have many more relatively poor people. I'm not sure what the Koch brothers have to do with that. Your argument does not appear to coherently respond to what I wrote.

the_ancient 13y ago

if tomorrow a law was passed the said only PV could be used to produce electricity, rates would sky rocket 3 to 5 times what they are today, the net effect of that would be that the vast majority of the population would not longer be able to afford electricity for their homes. Not to mention the price of goods would sky rocket leaving the vast majority of the population unable to buy anything beyond basic food stuffs if they could afford that. Entire Industries would collapse, which I am sure your fine with because less pollution. So most people would be using Candles for light, and walking to their jobs (if they had jobs) etc You seems to thing we can just switch to wind/solar/... with no effects on industry, prices, or quality of life. Everything would just be peachy and we will all sing kumbaya in the streets

Intermernet 13y ago
The vast majority of the population are already unable to afford electricity for their homes, and the price of goods (for them) is so dynamic due to local supply and demand that there is no guarantee that they can afford basic food stuffs. Yes, entire industries will collapse. This has happened before (Indian slavery by the East India Company?), most would say we're better off for it.
- the_ancient 13y ago
  Thank you for proving my point....
geoka9 13y ago
> walking to their jobs See nothing wrong with that. Unless we're talking much more than 5 kilometers and/or the job is physically strenuous.
- the_ancient 13y ago
  I live 20 miles (32km) one way from my job on a busy highway. That is about average for people in America.. 16 miles 1 way, 32 miles each day.

the_ancient 13y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw5Lda06iK0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw5Lda06iK0

Intermernet 13y ago
You'd do well not to listen to an actor about climate change. http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/09/my-advice-to-topher-field-take-money.html http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/09/my-advice-to-topher-field...