This is a pretty balanced look at climate change

[TierbsHsotBoobs]

All industries get some kind of subsidy

ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION!

 

[HoustonHusky]

So where are the graphs and the science on the cost benefit of doing what to save what?

I'm not playing. I'm just exposing you

The only realistic option before doing irreparable harm to the Earth's climate is to move towards sustainable energy.

I've detailed it so many times that I'm surprised you keep missing it: fossil fuels need to be waned off of. The things we can do right now are discourage the production of coal and petroleum, and encourage the production of a cleaner fuel like natural gas, of which the US has abundant reserves. Blocking the XL pipeline, stopping new coal projects makes sense.

There are things we can do to prolong the amount of time before we get fucked over by global warming. Mainly this entails setting high standards for fuel emissions that decrease average CO2 and Methane output. Another "nuclear" option is to geoengineer the Earth's atmosphere by pumping out sulfur dioxide. This would delay warming for another 10-20 years but could pose other risks. It would be best to avoid this because it only makes sense as a last resort, where the Earth has already warmed roughly 3 degrees Celsius. It only becomes a realistic option about 25-30 years from now based on long term warming trends.

I get that fossil fuels will be the cheaper for a long time, but that's because the infrastructure has been in place for decades, and big oil is sitting on trillions worth of reserves. They have at least another 50-80 years before they have to start worrying about their profits, and stand to lose the most if we shift to renewables. Why do you think the oil lobby is so powerful?

So far Moore's law has been somewhat applicable to the clean energy market. There are cheaper, more efficient innovations being made but it still lags far behind the relative easiness oil. That's why the intermittent process has to keep fossil fuels, and make burning them more efficient, as I've said many times, before the infrastructure for renewables is developed.

Reality is transportation is going to have to continue relying on petroleum until electric engines become more efficient and competitive on a wider scale. We can, however, slowly shift our domestic coal and shale oil production to natural gas to bring energy to the grid.

It's not a perfect plan, but it's the only analysis that makes sense for the planet long term.

If anyone is being exposed, it's the person who takes their cues from Richard Fucking Lindzen.

Holy cow that is a long laundry list of feel-good Liberalism lacking any scientific merit. I'll keep it short and sweet and point out just two of the many idiocies...
1). Has nothing to do with infrastructure and everything to do with the fact oil is basically an already processed fuel and not something you have to generate. Hence the term "refining". No renewable technology can compete until the cost of getting the barrels goes way up.
2). Has absolutely noting to do with electric engines and everything to do with energy storage (ie battery technology). Liquid fuel is an extremely efficient energy source of energy and batteries will have a hard time competing until the price of gas goes way up.

Keep replying in this thread though...your responses are pretty funny...although I don't think you see the humor.

 

[[Deleted User]]

Hey retard,

Obviously I was talking about the infrastructure in extracting, refining, and distributing, and the fact that pretty much everything is designed to run on oil.

And if you noticed I said until electric catches up we'll have to eat the petroleum bullet.

You offered nothing new to the table.

 

[Mad_Son]

We just don't have any cost benefit analysis or idea what they are.

YES WE DO!

As Sven noted, that chart is complete crap.

1) No source.
2) No explanation of what percentage of what means. It looks like energy produced may total 100% but there is still no explanation of what the subsidies are. I will interpret it to mean % of the production in that industry. That would put renewables subsidies at about 70% of 10% of production -> 7% of production worth of subsidies. Oil and gas look to be about a 14% of 50% of production -> 7% of production worth of subsidies. Since this chart is complete crap it doesn't even matter that it may very well just be a misleading way of not proving your point.

 

[HoustonHusky]

Hey retard,

Obviously I was talking about the infrastructure in extracting, refining, and distributing, and the fact that pretty much everything is designed to run on oil.

And if you noticed I said until electric catches up we'll have to eat the petroleum bullet.

You offered nothing new to the table.

Keep telling yourself you are right...I'll try and keep it more simply for you...
1). Infrastructure helps, but even if you were starting from a blank slate "renewables" in whatever form don't compete economically when looking at capital costs, raw material costs and/or energy production cost. It's a simple concept different from what you are claiming that keeps going over your apparently minimal awareness.
2). Don't blame me that you're ignorant enough to not know the technology limitations of electric cars..one would expect someone to understand the difference between "electric engines becoming more efficient" and electric engines being plenty efficient but the energy supply to them being inefficient.

You are the smart one around here...at least you keep telling us...don't blame me because you keep typing incredibly stupid and wrong things...

 

[death2ducks]

Hey retard,

Obviously I was talking about the infrastructure in extracting, refining, and distributing, and the fact that pretty much everything is designed to run on oil.

And if you noticed I said until electric catches up we'll have to eat the petroleum bullet.

You offered nothing new to the table.

It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong, like Obama and his 4 faggot friends in here.

 

[allpurpleallgold]

Hey retard,

Obviously I was talking about the infrastructure in extracting, refining, and distributing, and the fact that pretty much everything is designed to run on oil.

And if you noticed I said until electric catches up we'll have to eat the petroleum bullet.

You offered nothing new to the table.

It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong, like Obama and his 4 faggot friends in here.

And people who will have to pay a price will make decision based more on self preservation than what is actually right. You can spin that one any way you want.