Science tells us what solutions are possible, engineers have to actually make those solutions happen, entrepreneurs have to fund those engineers in order for them to be able to do so, and politics has to create the proper systemic incentives (some combination of carrots and sticks) to make it more obviously in those entrepreneurs best interests to pay the engineers to use the science to fix the damn problem already. — Pfhorrest

You are forgetting the most important way that proper systemic incentives are created (and to forget this is typical for our time). That is the markets and the market mechanism. Once renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels, there is no turning back anymore to them.

Usually people see the market mechanism as the evil cause of everything bad, yet it isn't so. Truly viable and sustainable choices are only firmly implemented once the market mechanism favors these choices. And that is totally possible, actually something that is already happening.

(A most simple chart)

Very simple, maybe a bit too simple. Who will own future energy? What will they charge, what will their bottom line business practice be?

By talking about incentives, I mean exactly making sure that the market price accurately reflects the real costs. If non-renewables are causing a public harm, then that cost needs to be factored into the market cost of them (by making the producers and/or users of them bear that cost -- which is a matter of politics, since this is a tragedy of the commons situation) so that there will be appropriate market pressures to transfer away from them.

Very simple, maybe a bit too simple. Who will own future energy? What will they charge, what will their bottom line business practice be? — Brett

Remember that the market isn't made just from the producers/suppliers/industry owners. That's just one side of the coin. There's also the aggregate demand, the buyers, consumers etc. Is as important.

By talking about incentives, I mean exactly making sure that the market price accurately reflects the real price. If non-renewables are causing a public harm, then that cost needs to be factored into the market cost of them (by making the producers and/or users of them bear that cost -- which is a matter of politics, since this is a tragedy of the commons situation) so that there will be appropriate market pressures to transfer away from them. — Pfhorrest

Yes. Taxes and wealth transfers have been invented. But how you calculate 'public harm' is quite difficult when you think of it.

In my country one of the most heavily taxed issues are cars and fuel. About 75% of the price of gasoline is simply taxes... 25% goes to the producers, importers, retailers and to transport costs. Since the 70's the car has been the cash cow for the government. Yet for example in the US gas prices are far lower.

Same thing with subsidies, actually.

Let me tell a story from real life. I thought of investing in a private venture that was building wind farms in Finland in the 2000's. I remember the "roadshow" for investors which I participated in. The analyst from the venture talk NEARLY ONLY about subsidies, the implemented laws and the contributions and stances that the government had taken. Their basic message was that the investors will get a good return on investment before the government subsidies run out. They briefly mentioned also geography and where it was best to construct the farms... and that the military didn't like wind farms to be built on the eastern border because they would give radar blind spots (an issue they were happy to abide with).

So my point is that the "final nail in the coffin" is that renewables are cheaper than non-renewables. Then there's no turning back anywhere. That has to be the real objective.

Remember that the market isn't made just from the producers/suppliers/industry owners. That's just one side of the coin. There's also the aggregate demand, the buyers, consumers etc. Is as important. — ssu

Yes, I agree with you about how it works. But if the buyer/consumer really had that much effect on the market then we probably wouldn’t be in the situation we are in now, that is the general cost of living versus wages versus a consumerism that seems to be insatiable.

But if the buyer/consumer really had that much effect on the market then we probably wouldn’t be in the situation we are in now, that is the general cost of living versus wages versus a consumerism that seems to be insatiable. — Brett

First, there's a great difference between an individual consumer and aggregate demand. And all those finished goods and services demanded in an economy aren't used just by 'us' as consumers. The demand side has within itself also producers and companies too as buyers. Add into the equation Global demand, the demand from other countries that make the exports of a country, which naturally are of huge importance to export oriented countries.

Hence even if the demand side is as important as the supply side, it is far more difficult to understand and especially far more difficult to influence. Hence the supply side is more often the one which is focused on. The narrative there is about companies and corporations trying to lower the production prices (through technology, outsourcing etc.), which basically falls to being the job of the leadership of those companies. Far easier to understand and handle.

Secondly, cost of living versus wages is a more complex issue (obviously).

My main problem with her and her movement is they point the finger of blame and criticism primarily at nations which
1) have low carbon emissions as a percentage of the global total, bar the USA (so, Europe, Canada, Australia)
2) whose carbon emissions are already dropping year on year and have done since the early 1990s.

The "solutions" they come up with are all going to slow down innovation. And innovation is, funnily enough, the very thing that's allowed us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions per capita in the first place.

I mean just think of how dumb it is to lead a charade of outrage by pointing specifically at European leaders and scream at them "you've deprived me of my youth!" while the greenhouse gases emitted by the EU as a share of the global total is about 20%. Selective crticism much?

And then the EU politicians are all tripping over themselves and fawning over her with smiles in their faces while they get castrated by a little girl, because they're so terrified by the press, who mostly support the left/green parties of Europe.

I am not sure from your English if they have approved the use of nuclear power or they just have the power (political power) to approve it or not. Please report back to me what you meant.

Both, they have the power to approve it, to subsidise it, to negotiate with investors and constructors. To insure it, take responsibility for decommissioning. Also they do currently approve of it, two new stations are being commissioned right now. Although they have dithered for the last 15 years or so, but now there is a serious energy gap looming and they have little choice if they are going to keep the lights on.

Interestingly fracking has been halted due to seismic activity, I doubt it will resume now. I expect a big expansion of offshore wind now, an industry doing very well for us.

This is precisely the sort of reaction that Greta's parents would like her to provoke. If I have a political statement to make, and I have a child do it in the most controversial manner possible, I can guarantee a backlash. Which then makes my opponnents look like horrible people, attacking a child of all things.

And then the EU politicians are all tripping over themselves and fawning over her with smiles in their faces while they get castrated by a little girl, because — Hallucinogen

... because there is no such thing as bad publicity.

Greta will be remembered, and people's memories of seeing a particular politician or two with Greta, and a little while later when things have blown over, the politician can rightfully claim with being victorious supporting Greta agaisnt other (evil) politicians.

If I haven't seen it once, i havent' seen it a thousand times. One of the oldest tricks in the book of tricks for politicians to use.

(Incidentally: can anyone tell me who this Greta person is I used to keep hearing about?)

This is precisely the sort of reaction that Greta's parents would like her to provoke. If I have a political statement to make, and I have a child do it in the most controversial manner possible, I can guarantee a backlash. Which then makes my opponnents look like horrible people, attacking a child of all things. — Pneumenon

I love attacking children. They are useless lying, cheating, little bastards with no moral compass. They will sell their mothers down the river for a chocolate bar. They will betray their country for a Pokemon game, and sell their souls to the devil for some candy and a ride in Satanmobil.

I want my tombstone to read, "Here a man who once was a child remembers what it is to be a child."

Why such a violent reaction to a young girl who's bringing the world's attention to a matter of great urgency for us all?

I really appreciate her heart-felt outburst against you-know-who, the-one-who-must-not-be-named by which I mean the adults. Many unkind words and pictures directed towards the young Greta. Quite unfortunate.

What concerns me is the role-reversal; a child is tutoring adults on how to run the world in an impassioned speech to world leaders, all adults. When a man uses his feet to do something the hands are supposed to do, it means the hands are severely incapacitated. Likewise, when a child's trying so hard to bring what is an urgent issue like climate change to our attention, it doesn't bode well for the world - the adults have failed miserably.

The "solutions" they come up with are all going to slow down innovation. And innovation is, funnily enough, the very thing that's allowed us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions per capita in the first place. — Hallucinogen

Luckily this isn't Greta, the teen does know something, it is that she doesn't know everything and it's for the adults to solve the issues. This the good thing about Ms Thunberg.

Yet this can be the real problem even if it might be overblown, it Still is there. Energy policy towards nuclear energy shows that public policy can be very unrealistic and based on prejudices.

When a man uses his feet to do something the hands are supposed to do, it means the hands are severely incapacitated. — TheMadFool

Hey, this is an age-old problem with men. Throughout the ages, we've used our wankolos when we ought to have used our heads.

Same effect.

Hey, this is an age-old problem with men. Throughout the ages, we've used our wankolos when we ought to have used our heads.

Same effect. — god must be atheist

:rofl:

We have not merely been given the world from our parents, we are also borrowing it from our children. — some proverb

We don't go shit where our children eat either.

What's the worst that can happen if we act on climate change? What's the worst that can happen if we do nothing? What's the responsible thing to do?

What's the worst that can happen if we act on climate change? — jorndoe

The economy collapses today and we all go hungry and die.

What's the worst that can happen if we do nothing? — jorndoe

The economy collapses tomorrow and we all go hungry and die.

What's the responsible thing to do? — jorndoe

Compromise.

, the worst that can happen if we act, is no worse than doing nothing, but could be better. (Wouldn't it be cool if we don't have to do a thing, and can just forget it and roll ahead?)

The responsible thing to do, is for subject matter experts to go through the motions of sober thorough examination, weighing risks of in/actions (there be ethics), the usual. Like we do with Ebola outbreaks, high-speed traffic, wildlife extinctions, military interventions, garbage disposal, ...

We could, at the very least, go shit where our children eat less frequently, as a start. Does that work as a "compromise"?

Greta made a great speech in Davos today, that clown Trump also spoke, it was embarrassing, he is a laughing stock.

I don't have a transcript to hand, but his basic message is that by being optimistic we can deliver unlimited power supplies, unlimited energy is within our grasp. Rather than listening to the doom mongers telling us that the apocalypse is upon us.

I don't have a transcript to hand, but his basic message is that by being optimistic we can deliver unlimited power supplies, unlimited energy is within our grasp. Rather than listening to the doom mongers telling us that the apocalypse is upon us. — Punshhh

Here is her opening speech (if I got the correct one from yesterday). Might be some other speech, because in this one I don't hear anything optimistic, but only accusations.



Greta: "I'm here to tell you that unlike you, my generation will not give up without a fight. - People are not going to give up, your the one's giving up." Let's see what that fight will be.

And here's the comic relief:



Donald: "the US is in the midst of an economic boom the likes of which the World has never seen before". Perhaps the Chinese leader is angry about Trump stealing his line.

And the truth about Trump's economic boom:

Thanks, I don't see what Greta has for her to be optimistic about. I thought she was calling them out for inaction.

Florida Lawmakers Create a Task Force on Sea Level Rise

https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/news/florida-lawmakers-create-a-task-force-on-sea-level-rise/vi-BBZeEYg?fbclid=IwAR1GxiMYFH6Crc878fTH6NDgnkpRxd5-GMx8yzprBT_AR7fLo6-vgF2knxE

Florida Lawmakers Create a Task Force on Sea Level Rise — ZzzoneiroCosm

That feels like a perfect set-up line....hmmm...

"The task force calls on Floridians to 'stand their ground' against sea level rise. Millions drive to the coast and begin firing on the encroaching sea."

Eh, I give that punchline a C+, someone can surely do better...

To @ZzzoneiroCosm, I will read your article...don't mean to be disrespectful (to you, obviously I am ok with some disrespect to Florida)

The task force calls on Floridians to 'stand their ground' against sea level rise. Millions drive to the coast and begin firing on the encroaching sea." — ZhouBoTong

:grin:

The children of Florida, ages 8 to 11, join hands in a continuous line form north to south and from east to west in a single file across the panhandle, to create a virtual crucifix in order to protest the sea levels rising.

Panhandlers will be prosecuted on the Panhandle.

Ribbons of green, blue and red, the most customary colours of the seas and oceans, will be sold for a dollar at Walmart, and the proceeds will go to finance the task force that organizes protests against sea rise.

There will be rides, politicians giving speeches, a beauty contest, a few drug related gunshots, a Taylor Swift tribute concert, and a "Jackie Onassis" look-alike contest, with free glasses of grapefruit juice sold for a dollar to finance the task force that organizes protests against sear rise.

There will be a panel of lawyers, judges and a jury of twelve of its peers, to discuss the illegality and un-American tendencies of sea level rise. The House Ethics Committee and Senators from all over the landscape will be in attendance as observers.

CN, CBB, CTI, and CAIEASOIF{POASDFJTV will be interviewing sharks, manatees, tigersharks, nuclear submarines and other sea life on the potential collapse of their real estate market now that more underwater area will be available for housing, spousing and spawning.

And the truth about Trump's economic boom: — ssu

if you look at the same period of each of the three graphs, which period is filled in for Trump, the cute observer will notice that both during Bush and Obama there had been negative growths and during Trumps, no negative growth.

I am NOT ON THE SIDE OF TRUMP. I am on the side of those who say that Americans are so fucking dumb, that they can't read and interpret properly even a simple two-dimensional chart. This is of course not a naturally acquired denseness, but the result of a public education policy of keeping the masses as stupid as they possibly can be.

I have just watched a youtube video, entitled, "Population Control Isn't the Answer to Climate Change. Capitalism Is", that revolves around something Greta Thunberg happened to have said:



We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!

I do not disagree with what she says, but I disagree with what it entails: Her speech was to meant for politicians. So, it amounts to saying to these politicians:

What are you actually waiting for, to radically force other people to comply with what I believe?

My point of view is that it is not enough to merely vote over forcing other people. Sorry, that is simply too easy. If you want to force other people, you must also be willing to risk your life and die for what you believe in.

That is why I somehow appreciate the yellow-vest revolt in France. It was a reasonable beginning. As far as I am concerned, it is ok for the French government to impose new gasoline taxes based on what people like Greta Thunberg say, but then their side must also be willing to risk their lives and die for what they believe in.

Hence, I was a bit disappointed with the pacifism with which the yellow-vest protesters proceeded. That is really not how you successfully call the other side's bluff.

I think that we are finally discovering that there are problems that cannot be solved by merely voting over them. That approach does not work, because as Nassim Taleb so famously wrote:

You need to put skin the game; while merely voting is not the same as putting real skin the game.