Our Settlements are Causing Global Warming Circa 1799

[Stanyon]

Global warming concerns are nothing new in the United States so I thought it would be interesting to post this article from the Smithsonian institute, much of it sounds pretty familiar.
America’s First Great Global Warming Debate | History | Smithsonian

 

[Brickjectivity]

Global warming concerns are nothing new in the United States so I thought it would be interesting to post this article from the Smithsonian institute, much of it sounds pretty familiar.
America’s First Great Global Warming Debate | History | Smithsonian

I think Jefferson's main concern was that industry would corrupt people. He believed farming was the best way to live and was concerned about mills and cities corrupting people. This argument of his was probably only one tangent from his main opinion about industries. There weren't hundreds of thousands of scientists behind him. It was just his opinion, and so he could be opposed reasonably by Noah Webster.

 

[bobhikes]

Global warming concerns are nothing new in the United States so I thought it would be interesting to post this article from the Smithsonian institute, much of it sounds pretty familiar.
America’s First Great Global Warming Debate | History | Smithsonian

Whether you believe in Global Warming or Not, there is no reason not to try and keep nature at its best. Making money should not take priority over life of any kind. Every time it does it leads to the downfall of our species, through war or disease. It is only a matter of time when money is valued higher than life that lives die.

 

[Stanyon]

Whether you believe in Global Warming or Not, there is no reason not to try and keep nature at its best. Making money should not take priority over life of any kind. Every time it does it leads to the downfall of our species, through war or disease. It is only a matter of time when money is valued higher than life that lives die.

I agree with you to a degree, teepees are actually pretty comfortable and I enjoy hunting and fishing but it isn't the world we live in today. I wonder how much waste and poison our old computers/tech devices actually contribute to the destruction of our planet including the factories that create the plastics, the resources expended by mining, gas for planes and trucking, plus all the resources employees creating the stuff have to expend- a comprehensive list of what it all actually involves just to create your keyboard would be exhausting.

 

[BSM1]

I agree with you to a degree, teepees are actually pretty comfortable and I enjoy hunting and fishing but it isn't the world we live in today. I wonder how much waste and poison our old computers/tech devices actually contribute to the destruction of our planet including the factories that create the plastics, the resources expended by mining, gas for planes and trucking, plus all the resources employees creating the stuff have to expend- a comprehensive list of what it all actually involves just to create your keyboard would be exhausting.

There is no such thing as the good old days. I'm not sure that the GW/CC outcry would be so shrill if many of these folks had to exist in the pre-color tv era.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Global warming concerns are nothing new in the United States so I thought it would be interesting to post this article from the Smithsonian institute, much of it sounds pretty familiar.
America’s First Great Global Warming Debate | History | Smithsonian

Thanks for the interesting link.

I'd say the belief in an anthropomorphic climate goes way back before that, to the dawn of civilization really.

Bad weather has always been blamed on bad people. People in power have always sought to elicit sacrifices on 'Gaia's' behalf to make amends.

warming, cooling, drought, flood- the 'problem' can be anything, the 'solution' is the one thing that never changes!

 

[Stanyon]

There is no such thing as the good old days. I'm not sure that the GW/CC outcry would be so shrill if many of these folks had to exist in the pre-color tv era.

I suspect some people would have children just so they could have a human remote, I'd just use a stick with a fork taped to it.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I agree with you to a degree, teepees are actually pretty comfortable and I enjoy hunting and fishing but it isn't the world we live in today. I wonder how much waste and poison our old computers/tech devices actually contribute to the destruction of our planet including the factories that create the plastics, the resources expended by mining, gas for planes and trucking, plus all the resources employees creating the stuff have to expend- a comprehensive list of what it all actually involves just to create your keyboard would be exhausting.

among other terms, it called full-cost accounting, or ecosystem services, among other terms. Yes, it is difficult to calculate, in part because we do not know how to properly value components of nature and exactly what services they provide, There have been a number of published efforts to establish the costs of many products.

This full accounting also requires that we recognize and include externalized costs...such as the millions of deaths caused by air pollution (primarily in cities) caused by burning fossil fuels to operate transportation and to generate electricity.

Some studies I've read suggest that at a very minimum, the price of electricity should be at least double if not triple current values in the US, to account for pollution-related deaths and illnesses, as well as damage to crops and the environment in general (changes in water pH, salinity, temperatures, presence of particulates, etc.)

 

[BSM1]

I suspect some people would have children just so they could have a human remote, I'd just use a stick with a fork taped to it.

Ha! I can remember the days when I had to stand rabbit ear adjustment duty.

 

[Father Heathen]

Global warming concerns are nothing new in the United States so I thought it would be interesting to post this article from the Smithsonian institute, much of it sounds pretty familiar.
America’s First Great Global Warming Debate | History | Smithsonian

Your link privided a very interesting video: Climate Change 101 With Bill Nye the Science Guy

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Whether you believe in Global Warming or Not, there is no reason not to try and keep nature at its best. Making money should not take priority over life of any kind. Every time it does it leads to the downfall of our species, through war or disease. It is only a matter of time when money is valued higher than life that lives die.

The issue is that were aren't even debating about the same points.

Okay, look, even conservative Christian types have religious mandate to "be good stewards of the Earth." This is in fact that origin of stuff like Rogatian Sunday in the church. It is not also in debate that areas heavy with coal could stand to switch to some other fuel source.

The problem is, not only is the science awful (I cannot find the link, but I was reading an article on how the reason weather forecasts are off is because of climate hysteria, that hurricanes are predicted much worse than they are because of an extreme position. This will do, though), and even the math (supposedly 97% of the scientific community accepts global warming, but actually...), but... ummm I don't know how to tell you this, but if we suddenly ran out of oil, which we actually are doing eventually (why we're doing all this stuff with ethanol) big businesses would begin to switch over to a new energy source, just as they did from whale oil long ago. This is perfectly fine. We should indeed have clean energy. This is not in dispute.

The problem with climate change is actually nothing to do with saving the environment, and everything to do with claiming land and greenwashing and taxing people. (1) Like, why do we need a carbon tax (you are literally taxing people on their energy use)? Why can't we just do away with carbon by switching to clean power? No hybrid stuff, just do it. Or don't complain about the environment, because you are part of the problem. (2) Some sources of power are actually worse for the environment. Like, wind power turbines actually cut up birds that fly through them. And solar power has materials made from graphene (which breaks into ultersharp shards that become dangerous if there is water nearby). The idea that all green stuff is automatically good is greenwashing. (3) Much of environmentalism involves buying large tracts of land. In theory, this this protects the land from human development. In practice however, sometimes this becomes turned over to developers or government use, where the environmental impact isn't even as good as if the private sector owned the land. For example, commercial loggers have a profit margin to consider, so planting more trees is in their best interest. Whereas a national park, often functions as a big open campground, and clear-cuts whatever land they want for tourists.

To say nothing of basically hamstringing technology to meet unrealistic environmental mandates, and impoverishing our countries (banning coal, for instance, bankrupts areas that rely on it).

 

[bobhikes]

The issue is that were aren't even debating about the same points.

Okay, look, even conservative Christian types have religious mandate to "be good stewards of the Earth." This is in fact that origin of stuff like Rogatian Sunday in the church. It is not also in debate that areas heavy with coal could stand to switch to some other fuel source.

The problem is, not only is the science awful (I cannot find the link, but I was reading an article on how the reason weather forecasts are off is because of climate hysteria, that hurricanes are predicted much worse than they are because of an extreme position. This will do, though), and even the math (supposedly 97% of the scientific community accepts global warming, but actually...), but... ummm I don't know how to tell you this, but if we suddenly ran out of oil, which we actually are doing eventually (why we're doing all this stuff with ethanol) big businesses would begin to switch over to a new energy source, just as they did from whale oil long ago. This is perfectly fine. We should indeed have clean energy. This is not in dispute.

The problem with climate change is actually nothing to do with saving the environment, and everything to do with claiming land and greenwashing and taxing people. (1) Like, why do we need a carbon tax (you are literally taxing people on their energy use)? Why can't we just do away with carbon by switching to clean power? No hybrid stuff, just do it. Or don't complain about the environment, because you are part of the problem. (2) Some sources of power are actually worse for the environment. Like, wind power turbines actually cut up birds that fly through them. And solar power has materials made from graphene (which breaks into ultersharp shards that become dangerous if there is water nearby). The idea that all green stuff is automatically good is greenwashing. (3) Much of environmentalism involves buying large tracts of land. In theory, this this protects the land from human development. In practice however, sometimes this becomes turned over to developers or government use, where the environmental impact isn't even as good as if the private sector owned the land. For example, commercial loggers have a profit margin to consider, so planting more trees is in their best interest. Whereas a national park, often functions as a big open campground, and clear-cuts whatever land they want for tourists.

To say nothing of basically hamstringing technology to meet unrealistic environmental mandates, and impoverishing our countries (banning coal, for instance, bankrupts areas that rely on it).

Taxing is wrong for a lot of things, so is government interference. Money and governments will keep changing and we won't be worse because of it. Once the planet is damaged humans will no longer exist. I see garbage thrown all over the place even with government fines. People still run there car's while parked for no reason other than comfort, even though it is illegal. I love hiking and bring a plastic bag to pick up the trash that I find. It is always half full on return. People need to be threatened to do what is right, religion has been around for ages and still there wasteful slobs.

NO I don't like taxes and regulations and I don't personally believe in climate change but I know without mandates we will ruin this world and so we have to pay a little more to keep nature pristine, I'll gladly support it.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

That was basically my point.

If you want to fix the environment, rather than taxing people into the stone age, offer a bounty. $X million dollars, or even billion, to find a stable power source. Businesses are greedy, many environmentalists act like this is an evil thing. But actually, it can work to human advantage, causing greed to be put into practical systems with long-term gain.

 

[BSM1]

That was basically my point.

If you want to fix the environment, rather than taxing people into the stone age, offer a bounty. $X million dollars, or even billion, to find a stable power source. Businesses are greedy, many environmentalists act like this is an evil thing. But actually, it can work to human advantage, causing greed to be put into practical systems with long-term gain.

This has been going on since the 1970's. Unfortunately there is no alternative energy source that is cost effective. If there were such an animal, someone would have been making millions on it already.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

This has been going on since the 1970's. Unfortunately there is no alternative energy source that is cost effective. If there were such an animal, someone would have been making millions on it already.

The real problem is that producers and consumers of energy have not had to face the true costs of their decisions, and indeed, government policy in most nations for the last 100+ years has been to subsidize certain kinds of energy (coal, oil, gas, nuclear) while not providing incentives--and often putting up barriers--to the development of other alternatives.

In countries in Europe, the cost of energy is significantly higher than in the US, and thus alternatives are much more cost-effective than here. Many nations have pulled the plug on nuclear and fossil fuels, and are replacing them with solar and wind...to some extent, they have done this by removing the subsidies for nuclear fossil fuels, and shifting what incentives they do have to alternative energies, but they have also been active in forcing energy providers and consumers to face the real costs...which also provides incentives for reductions in energy use, and higher efficiencies in technology.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Correction. I have solar lighting system in my front yard. It cost under $100 to install a bunch of tiny lights and

It is possible to make a well made product for some money or a poorly made product for less. Depending on your definition, it is possible to make existing products cost-effective. The problem isn't cost effectiveness. It's reliability.

• The big three (coal, natural gas, petroleum) are reliable... until we run out of them. And they're not clean. But they do have big backers. This will be important later.
• Nuclear energy is usually only backed by certain types of people. The rest of the population thinks they're nuts. All it takes is one meltdown and you have fallout (not to mention lawsuits).
  
• Wind power kills birds and you have to install loads of mini generators to produce any decent amount of power. And if you don't live in a tornado zone or something, you could be in an energy drought
• The same is true of solar power. If you live in Forks, WA or somewhere in the Dakotas, having a high amount of sunlight is not an issue you get, so not much energy.
  
• Hydroelectic plants. If you're not near a waterfall, this won't work.

There are other alternatives to the ones mentioned above. But they have their own sets of problems.

Say the words, "cold fusion." Go ahead, I dare you. And watch your career as a scientist go up in smoke. Even though several scientists have apparently generated some energy from spent nuclear reactions and chemical stuff, they are completely discredited every time. (In fact, this article was even cached, the original article got deleted) Why? Two words: commercial intervention. Remember I talked about those big three? Well, if something promises to cheaply provide energy, expect to get laughed out of the room. There is also some competition from hot fusion scientists. In fact, the article mentions "Lowe Energy Nuclear Reactions" which are basically same thing, different name (but phrased so it doesn't seem to be in conflict with hot fusion science), and suddenly people are like "yeah, this works."
Edge.org
It's Not Cold Fusion... But It's Something

Same treatment to attempts to create energy from perpetual motion devices. True, some stuff really does not work. But even stuff that kinda sorta works, giving small amounts of energy with small effort, "we couldn't duplicate this process." Did you try?!?

Those major oil, gas, and coal companies are used to their status. They don't want to take risks, they don't want to change anything. That would change if people were to, say, suddenly cut funding of these businesses unless they committed serious effort to figuring out how to make any of these fuel sources work in a cost-effective manner.

What about geothermal energy? It uses heat differential from temperature under the ground to create energy.

The point is, they aren't "cost effective" because nobody wants them to be.

Oh yeah, and there's mechanical energy. The problem with this is, you're basically paying people to wind a crank for 8 or so hours straight. That's a boring and sucky job.