Tablet, did it auto idk how to change that stuff. Certainly couldn't post from my flip phone.

Sent from my DPA23D-4S using 2+2 Forums

Why stop at Hummers? How about all pickup trucks? Or all full size cars? People driving cars with poor mpg already pay significantly more in taxes. Perhaps the government should be a bit wiserr with the money they take in

Sent from my DPA23D-4S using 2+2 Forums

I don't think banning hummers is a good idea, but I think that slippery-slope arguments are even worse. We draw lots of invisible lines in the sand, and we do it with almost everything.

Hurrah! My name does mean "pretends to know more than he really does" though.

How do hummers hurt the environment?

Seriously?

yeah, seriously, interested in hearing the answer.

I feel like this is a gotcha question wherr we say "they release more co2 into the atmosphere than necessary" and domer says...??

I mean they release CO2, and increase GHGs in the atmosphere. Average temperature increases slightly as a result.

Where in that chain do bad things for the environment arise? He said the environment would be "hurt", as in somehow damaged.

Let's take a wider view, and look at temperature increases against the backdrop of a planet that frequently (on a geological scale) sees massive fluctuations in temperature between ice ages and interglacials -- and even within this interglacial, the holocene, temperatures were likely multiple degrees C higher than today. Nothing to do with humans, and the Earth survived. In the previous interglacial, we estimate that sea levels were 20 feet higher than they are today. Again, no humans involved.

I think viewing gradual increases in temperature as a 100% guaranteed "bad" thing doesn't make much sense. The premise of that opinion is that humans have altered the Earth from an otherwise pristine existence. Some equilibrium state. Except, there is not some pristine equilibrium state. The direct opposite in fact. So again, I ask, how is the environment being "hurt" by CO2 emissions? Altered by humans does not equal hurt.

You can look at the flip side of the environmental equation and look at the human angle. We have slightly altered the atmosphere of the planet in the past 70 or so years that we've been emitting decent amounts of carbon....true story. But we've also made incredible leaps forward for the human species in that time period. We've made astronomical advances in health, in wealth, in education, in technology. Incredible leaps forward.

A person born today will have the longest projected lifespan of any human born ever. Crippling poverty could become a thing of the past in our lifetime. We'll be potentially be a multi-planet species in two decades. Farming is so much more efficient now than two generations ago. Virtually the entirety of human knowledge can be accessed from your cell phone.

Much of that is directly tied to our deploying of fossil fuel energy, which powers our lives, allows us to transport goods and people, and has led to massive economic growth.

So look at all of the phenomenal outcomes of the 20th Century and weigh it against very gradual changes to the environment, and the balance is deeply stacked in favor of positive outcomes.

This is why the bogeyman is always in some far away decade like 2100. The world will be hellish.....80 years from now! It's not here yet, but just trust us on this one.

The truth is we're going to decarbonize without government interference. Oil is unwieldy and expensive. Solar is making huge leaps in efficiency. We're potentially a few years away from a breakthrough in fusion, at worst a couple of decades. Electric cars look to be within reach of affordability over the next 5-10 years. We become more technologically advanced by the year.

What's the reason that we need to curtail global growth in order to try to decrease temperatures by...half a degree in 2100? What does that achieve exactly? It's an uncertain policy outcome with a very certain short term cost, in the form of GDP growth. And decreases in GDP growth cascade down into adverse health, education, and lifespan outcomes.

I see a policy prescription that involves any sort of tax or massive spend as arrogantly pointless. And based on idiotic computer models of a planet 80 years from now, climate models which have proven to be complete failures even as alarmists jump in joy about 2014 being the hottest year evar (statistical tie with 2005 & 2010).

I thought the role of (aight, democratic) governments is to represent - at the bare minimum the majority of - the people. Not dictating what people ought to think and do.

But if banning is such a great tool, we could start by banning the possession of reproductive organs for eco warriors. That would noticeably reduce future resource needs.

And no, I'm not a sceptic. Still believe we can do more, but not at any cost.

Thats a pretty terrible post. Was anyone suggesting that the US have a dictatorship?

One of you climate changers address the points domer made above.

The entire post is based on the conceit that human progress always moves in one direction. History is littered with the ruins of Pollyanna civilizations.

Whether or not we actively try to mitigate the causes and effects of climate change may very well be the difference between a smooth transition to a post-fossil fuel world or a massive step backwards for humanity caused (or more likely exacerbated) by increasing global temperatures. I'm not willing to cross my fingers and pray that the next 80 years are going to be fantabulous just because the past 70 turned out pretty ok, most of the time, for most of us.

Climate change is but one aspect of the impact man has on the environment. For some reason this particular issue is more emotive than others but there's a whole host of ways in which we negatively impact this planet. Yes, this planet is tough as hell and life will almost certainly continue after we're gone, but that doesn't mean we're not making things less healthy and more difficult and dangerous for future generations and all the other life on this planet by sticking our fingers in our ears and just ignoring the problem.

Driving lower MPG cars/carpooling/public transport/cycling etc, not taking plastic bags from the supermarket, all the way down to vegetarianism, are things that range from 'minor inconveniences in our lives' to 'changes that are positive for ourselves as well as the planet'. If you don't even consider doing those things, you are being selfish with respect to future generations. There's a gigantic island of garbage floating in the pacific that's testament to our consumerist society. Am I perfect? No, of course not, I'm stuck in this consumer trap society just like everyone else who doesn't retreat into the forest and subsist on berries. Can I do something about it other than kill myself? Hell yes.

Sometimes my government tells me what to do that's not just for the benefit of me, but for the people around me. We don't live in some uber-free society where we get to f*** other people over just because the effects are cumulative and don't show up on a day-to-day basis. The government has decided that you can't smoke in many places. Why shouldn't they decide that you can't drive hummers?

Means to whom?

The dictionary.

Go spend a couple of weeks in a city like Beijing.

I'm on the "we shouldn't put so much CO2 in the atmosphere if we can help it" side, but neither of those last two posts are CO2.

Does anyone else start singing Cher: "Do you beeeelieeeeeeve in life after love?" Every time they see this thread? Because you really should. It's awesome.

I was responding to the question "how does a Hummer hurt the environment?"

Fair point.

It's 5 in the morning and I didn't read the quote properly

domer2,

I'm a pretty hard core environmentalist and don't think I disagree with anything you said in post 360 except maybe your definition of government interference.

The solar industry, for example, has progressed as you said. What was $5/watt in 2007 can now be bought for $.70/watt. But, that would certainly not have happened so fast and possibly never without some government assistance in getting the market going. I think that government assistance has been quite modest and has provided a large net benefit to the economy as well as the environment.

As far as pollution goes (not CO2), a lot of government interference has taken the United States from being a mess with rivers on fire, untreated waste recklessly dumped, and hard to breath air (just like China is now) to a much cleaner place.

Environmental regulations will absolutely not be crippling to the United States. I think there's a fairly strong negative feedback system in the climate that has kept it bouncing from cold to hot and back, but it's nowhere near as robust as the ability of economic interests to counter environmental regulation. There is no way government interference will be sustained if it damages the economy without producing fairly obvious results.

Kioshk, as we've discussed before...

Nixon

Created the EPA
Signed the Clean Air Act (which his EPA drafted)
Signed the Endangered Species Act (which he called for)

The environment is for conservatives too.

On a lighter note

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/s...*-201011253286

Another good example of government interference imo:

Lighting accounts for 12% of the electical usage in the United States. Obviously that's a huge huge amount of energy. Unfortunately people tend to be quite short sighted and not only is it difficult to get investment in technologies that might not pay off quickly, even when those technologies are available, most people are happy to save now and pay more in the long run. Sure there was some cost in crappy CFLs and LEDs weren't initially that great either and were extremely expensive and still are somewhat expensive. But, thanks imo to not very disruptive government interference like title-24 in California, we have great LED lights that don't cost too much and use a small fraction of the energy per lumen.

You're arguing about semantics, not about whether global warming is real or is a huge danger to us. How big was human civilisation during the last ice age? How big was it when the earth was 5c warmer? How well do you think London or New York will do when they're ten meters under water?

Our civilisation is "designed" for this exact temperature. If we change that temperature, we will destroy ourselves.