Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)

[Gough]

Those spruiking the benefits of climate change are the same ones that denied it's existence for so long and thus can be safely ignored.

 

[Cap]

Of course it’s good. We’re liberating it from the lithosphere to the biosphere where it is more useful.

Those cycads of the Carboniferous thought they could get away with it but they were wrong.

More carbon doesn't mean more plant growth, even if it did it wouldn't be equal, wouldn't necessarily benefit the plants we need to survive, nor the food of the animals we . In addition the change in the weather likely makes the places we grow food unable to grow as much.

And that's not even considering the increase temperatures.

I get the appeal of believing it, but it's hard to believe it once you scratch a bit deeper

 

[Cap]

Those spruiking the benefits of climate change are the same ones that denied it's existence for so long and thus can be safely ignored.

At the end of the day it's easier to believe it's going to be fine.

 

[royale with cheese]

More carbon doesn't mean more plant growth

No, but more nitrogen fixation from the Haber-Bosch process and phosphate mined from guano deposits and we're making a more habitable world for all forms of life.

 

[Cap]

No, but more nitrogen fixation from the Haber-Bosch process and phosphate mined from guano deposits and we're making a more habitable world for all forms of life.

Lol, fertiliser is great, but they are literally moving away from making ammonia like that because of its carbon footprint.

But that's the point, making it harder to grow stuff so we need more fertiliser is a problem. That concedes additional carbon isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Edit - I should add, you also need water, not to much as to wash away your fertiliser, but at least enough to allow the plants to use it.

 

[royale with cheese]

Lol, fertiliser is great, but they are literally moving away from making ammonia like that because of its carbon footprint.

“Literally”, yes I’m sure the higher energy inputs and costs needed for blue hydrogen as feedstock for ammonia in place of steam-reformed methane will bring the welcome decline to living standards that Exxon describes in its briefing to stockholders.

 

[Cap]

“Literally”, yes I’m sure the higher energy inputs and costs needed for blue hydrogen as feedstock for ammonia in place of steam-reformed methane will bring the welcome decline to living standards that Exxon describes in its briefing to stockholders.

Again, they are making fertiliser. You can call it that

Suggesting tackling climate change will bring a decline to living standards is just an almost laughable position to have, considering the likely alternative to not existing.

Stop embarrassing yourself, just admit you really don't care about the people in the futures ability to live on the planet because you'll be dead. That is a perfectly fine position to hold, especially for one with your political viewpoints.

 

[royale with cheese]

Again, they are making fertiliser. You can call it that

Suggesting tackling climate change will bring a decline to living standards is just an almost laughable position to have, considering the likely alternative to not existing.

Stop embarrassing yourself, just admit you really don't care about the people in the futures ability to live on the planet because you'll be dead. That is a perfectly fine position to hold, especially for one with your political viewpoints.

What is the “likelihood” of “not existing”?

“They are making fertiliser”. Yes, the aim is to crack water into hydrogen using renewable energy, then use the Haber-Bosch to make the ammonia with renewable energy again. The end to end cost is orders of magnitude higher than methane produced ammonia.

Then again, how do they ship grain without bunker oil? I think I read battery powered cargo and grain ships would have 50% of their weight taken up by the battery. Making shipping completely infeasible.

There is no “net-zero” without huge decline in living standards. What you are guaranteeing is that and possible mass starvation to avoid a “likelihood” of not existing. Sounds dumb.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

There is no “net-zero” without huge decline in living standards. What you are guaranteeing is that and possible mass starvation to avoid a “likelihood” of not existing. Sounds dumb.

The living standards of certain billionaires might decline over time, but for most people there won't be much difference.

Why are you simping for Gina and Clive?

 

[JackOutback]

There are no dummies that work for Exxon

Maybe not, but there’s definitely assholes who deliberately hid the consequences of their activities on the planet.

 

[JackOutback]

Is this really the new argument? We denied climate change existed for decades but actually, we now know it’s happening, but it’s good for you?

There might be no dummies at Exxon but there sure are dummies in this thread. Someone took Gina Reinhart’s call to ‘spruik mining for 15 minutes every day’ to heart.

 

[royale with cheese]

The living standards of certain billionaires might decline over time, but for most people there won't be much difference.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

You have no idea what you are talking about.

I have plenty of ideas and will always push back against parroted IPA talking points sponsored by Gina Rinehart.

 

[royale with cheese]

I have plenty of ideas and will always push back against parroted IPA talking points sponsored by Gina Rinehart.

Gina Rinehart has a number of investments that will do very well out of the transition to clean energy.

Unless you think mining will cease completely. If so you’re consigning 7 billion people to starvation.

 

[Cap]

What is the “likelihood” of “not existing”?

“They are making fertiliser”. Yes, the aim is to crack water into hydrogen using renewable energy, then use the Haber-Bosch to make the ammonia with renewable energy again. The end to end cost is orders of magnitude higher than methane produced ammonia.

Again, it doesn't have to be more expensive. That's just your opinion on it.

There are plenty of smarter people than us working on ways to do things in a more efficient and less carbon intensive way.

Edit - in addition if we weren't destroying the planet by increasing the need to farm on worse land, more fertiliser wouldn't even be needed.

Then again, how do they ship grain without bunker oil? I think I read battery powered cargo and grain ships would have 50% of their weight taken up by the battery. Making shipping completely infeasible.

Again, smarter people than us are working on that. Fortunately we don't rely on people like you for progress, we'd still be using horse and cart because 'that's what we've always done'.

Edit - to be fair, those crappy cheap plastics items that we all throw away without a thought might become more expensive....but that might not be a bad thing.

There is no “net-zero” without huge decline in living standards. What you are guaranteeing is that and possible mass starvation to avoid a “likelihood” of not existing. Sounds dumb.

Utter garbage. That's just a talking point parroted by people who don't know better.

 

[burge13]

Lovely people these "activists". As always, hypocrites when it comes down to crunch time and they can earn a $

 

[Cap]

Lovely people this "activists". As always, hypocrites when it comes down to crunch time and they can earn a $

Imagine if people like you where half as articulate as her.

Would you have been happier if she'd turned down the money and been on social security?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Gina Rinehart has a number of investments that will do very well out of the transition to clean energy.

Unless you think mining will cease completely. If so you’re consigning 7 billion people to starvation.

What's next, are you going to recite some of her 'poetry'?

 

[royale with cheese]

Again, it doesn't have to be more expensive. That's just your opinion on it.

This is incredibly disingenuous. It is much more expensive in terms of net energy required. So the energy needed to produce fertiliser (or whatever) must be significantly cheaper. You can’t beat the laws of thermodynamics.

 

[royale with cheese]

What's next, are you going to recite some of her 'poetry'?

Your understanding of politics is limited to easily accessible symbols of derision (“Murdoch”, “Gina”, etc). Maybe this works with your very simple minded fellow travellers on here but not anyone with a better understanding of the world.

 

[burge13]

Imagine if people like you where half as articulate as her.

Would you have been happier if she'd turned down the money and been on social security?

You've spent like 15 hours straight posting about climate change. Go outside mate

Why is there only 2 options? Whats social security got to do with it? She hates oil unless they pay her. Hypocrite scum

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Your understanding of politics is limited to easily accessible symbols of derision (“Murdoch”, “Gina”, etc). Maybe this works with your very simple minded fellow travellers on here but not anyone with a better understanding of the world.

Climate change is science. Denial of that science is political.

 

[royale with cheese]

Climate change is science. Denial of that science is political.

Who’s denying it?

 

[Cap]

You've spent like 15 hours straight posting about climate change. Go outside mate

Why is there only 2 options? Whats social security got to do with it? She hates oil unless they pay her. Hypocrite scum

Why, miss out on your shit takes?

There aren't two options, you decided to link her earning income and her protesting.

But some people don't have the ability to turn down income. She is perfectly entitled to protest.

The only scum here is you trying to deny people's right to protest. But that's a very RWNJ thing to do, you guys love some authoritarianism

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Who’s denying it?

Your conservative brethren. Those who think economic growth is more important than a healthy environment.