[Truth To Power]

So your claim us only true for whatever country you are talking about?

No, because fossil fuels trade in international markets.

[Truth To Power]

@Truth To Power

Since Canada provides billions of dollars in subsidies for fossil fuels, can we then assume that fossil fuels are more expensive than solar and wind in Canada?

No, because the taxes on fossil fuels vastly exceed the subsidies, but vice versa for solar and wind.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, that's just silly, anti-scientific nonsense based on a false and absurd assumption that CO2 emissions represent a more or less infinite negative externality.

No, because what you claim is a cost -- CO2 emissions -- is actually a benefit.

The "argument" for changing is based on objectively false assumptions.

No, this is wrong. And I already know you will not provide the evidence to support your claim since I have already looked at it and know your argument is incorrect.

No, because fossil fuels trade in international markets.

The claim that fossil fuels are not subsidised is also wrong and again, you will not present evidence because the evidence shows that your argument is wrong.

No, because the taxes on fossil fuels vastly exceed the subsidies, but vice versa for solar and wind.

No. This claim is also wrong. You almost certainly have no idea about Canada taxes and support of fossil fuels.

[Truth To Power]

No, this is wrong.

My statement was of course objectively correct.

And I already know you will not provide the evidence to support your claim since I have already looked at it and know your argument is incorrect.

I already know that your requests for evidence are disingenuous, as I have often supplied peer-reviewed evidence for my statements, and no matter how many times I do so, you have continued to claim that you know I will not provide evidence, as you just did again, above.

The claim that fossil fuels are not subsidised is also wrong

I made no such claim. You simply made it up, like most of what you say.

and again, you will not present evidence because the evidence shows that your argument is wrong.

Again, you ignore evidence and simply claim, falsely, that it has not been provided.

No. This claim is also wrong.

It is objectively correct.

You almost certainly have no idea about Canada taxes and support of fossil fuels.

Please present your evidence that fossil fuels are subsidized more or taxed less than solar or wind power, without falsely and groundlessly assuming that CO2 emissions are somehow a societal cost that implies a subsidy to fossil fuels.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Truth To Power

Note that my predictions were entirely correct: you provided no evidence at all.

And no, you can Google "which costs more fossil fuels or solar wind hydro".

You can even copy and paste it from my post.

[Pants-of-dog]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60984663

UN scientists have unveiled a plan that they believe can limit the root causes of dangerous climate change.

A key UN body says in a report that there must be "rapid, deep and immediate" cuts in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

Global emissions of CO2 would need to peak within three years to stave off the worst impacts.

Even then, the world would also need technology to suck CO2 from the skies by mid-century.

....

"I think the report tells us that we've reached the now-or-never point of limiting warming to 1.5C," said IPCC lead author Heleen De Coninck, who's Professor of Socio-Technical Innovation and Climate Change at Eindhoven University of Technology.

Speaking to BBC News she said: "We have to peak our greenhouse gas emissions before 2025 and after that, reduce them very rapidly.

"And we will have to do negative emissions or carbon dioxide removal in the second half of the century, shortly after 2050, in order to limit warming to 1.5C."

The next few years are critical, say the researchers, because if emissions aren't curbed by 2030, it will make it nigh on impossible to limit warming later this century.

Key to that in the short term will be how we generate energy. Luckily, solar panel and wind turbines have never been cheaper, having fallen in cost by around 85% over the past decade.

"It's game over for the fossil fuels that are fuelling both wars and climate chaos," said Kaisa Kosonen from Greenpeace, who was an observer at the IPCC approval session.

Given this information, it seems to make sense that we use this war as an impetus to stop using fossil fuels altogether.

If you really want to stop Russian oligarchs from making money, this will definitely help.

[Rancid]

Given this information, it seems to make sense that we use this war as an impetus to stop using fossil fuels altogether.

If you really want to stop Russian oligarchs from making money, this will definitely help.

Agree, but probably not going to happen. Money is placed over climate change or national security or genocides or whatever horrible shit.

[BlutoSays]

Heckuva job, Joey!!

You’ll Need $5200 More This Year to Live the Exact Same Life
By Devan McGuinness, Apr 04 2022, Fatherly.com

Economists from Bloomberg have estimated that the average U.S. household will be forced to spend $433 more a month this year for the same things they bought in 2021.

The current inflation rate, where prices are rising at the fastest pace that they have in 40 plus years, is walloping the wallets of parents. Working families are now struggling with rising gas prices, higher grocery bills, and a housing market that seems out of control — just look at rent costs that have skyrocketed as much as 40 percent in some cities. And new data from Bloomberg economists have found out just how much inflation will impact a family budget in a dollar amount this year.

As of February 2022, the consumer price index rose by 7.9 percent over last year. That massive growth in the cost of everyday items from eggs to vegetables has the potential to completely screw with our budgets — and it’s will continue to impact our budgets over the next few months, to the tune of many hundred dollars a month.

“Inflation will mean the average U.S. household has to spend an extra $5,200 this year ($433 per month) compared to last year for the same consumption basket,” Bloomberg Economics reports.

Having to spend an extra $433 per month to get the same is a hefty, even gargantuan ask for anyone — especially parents who are already struggling to keep a roof over their kid’s heads and food on the table. And with social safety net supports having disappeared, like the end of stimulus checks, extended and enhanced unemployment insurance, and the end of programs like the Child Tax Credit, and with student loan payments set to resume, parents are in for a reckoning, one they’re already working through. Now with costs of meats, milk, and vegetables ballooning, and rent and home costs going up, too, budgets are going to be very tight, even impossible to manage, for many parents.

MOAR: https://www.fatherly.com/news/inflation ... ns-budget/

[Wulfschilde]

Just wait until winter. The Russians want to take this slow in order to not make the neutrals, like Hungary, look bad but all they have to do is start turning the gas on and off while it's cold, selectively per country, act like they are negotiating, and as soon as one major country gives in and starts paying in roubles everyone is at each other's throats and/or freezing, not to mention the economic havoc of industry having to pay twice as much for gas.

They've also got an over six month lead time so that they can say "we warned you and even let you pay in Euros for six months, what did you expect?"

[Truth To Power]

UN scientists have unveiled a plan that they believe can limit the root causes of dangerous climate change.

But they are actually just makin' $#!+ up.

A key UN body says in a report that there must be "rapid, deep and immediate" cuts in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

Even though such cuts will have almost no effect on climate.

Global emissions of CO2 would need to peak within three years to stave off the worst impacts.

The net effects of CO2 emissions are beneficial, as it fertilizes plants but has almost no effect on climate.

Even then, the world would also need technology to suck CO2 from the skies by mid-century.

If it needs to waste a lot of money on hysterical nonscience.

"I think the report tells us that we've reached the now-or-never point of limiting warming to 1.5C," said IPCC lead author Heleen De Coninck, who's Professor of Socio-Technical Innovation and Climate Change at Eindhoven University of Technology.

I.e., a Professor of Hysterical Anti-Fossil-Fuel Nonscience.

Speaking to BBC News she said: "We have to peak our greenhouse gas emissions before 2025 and after that, reduce them very rapidly.

However, there is actually no reason to believe any such nonscience. The BBC merely decided to give every blathering anti-fossil-fuel ignoramus a platform.

"And we will have to do negative emissions or carbon dioxide removal in the second half of the century, shortly after 2050, in order to limit warming to 1.5C."

No, such measures will have almost no effect on global warming, which has been caused almost exclusively by the sustained multi-millennium high in solar activity in the 20th century.

The next few years are critical, say the researchers, because if emissions aren't curbed by 2030, it will make it nigh on impossible to limit warming later this century.

But their claims are actually just stupid garbage with no basis in empirical science.

Key to that in the short term will be how we generate energy. Luckily, solar panel and wind turbines have never been cheaper, having fallen in cost by around 85% over the past decade.

Because subsidies enable them to be sold at a loss.

"It's game over for the fossil fuels that are fuelling both wars and climate chaos," said Kaisa Kosonen from Greenpeace, who was an observer at the IPCC approval session.

There has certainly been war over fossil fuels, but there is no evidence the Ukraine war is one of them. And there is in fact no discernible climate chaos for fossil fuels to have fueled, beyond the normal variations typical of the Holocene.

Given this information, it seems to make sense that we use this war as an impetus to stop using fossil fuels altogether.

If you really want to stop Russian oligarchs from making money, this will definitely help.

Like, if you really want to stop eyeglass monopolists from making money, it will definitely help to leave your vision uncorrected....

[Pants-of-dog]

But they are actually just makin' $#!+ up.

Even though such cuts will have almost no effect on climate.

The net effects of CO2 emissions are beneficial, as it fertilizes plants but has almost no effect on climate.

If it needs to waste a lot of money on hysterical nonscience.

I.e., a Professor of Hysterical Anti-Fossil-Fuel Nonscience.

However, there is actually no reason to believe any such nonscience. The BBC merely decided to give every blathering anti-fossil-fuel ignoramus a platform.

No, such measures will have almost no effect on global warming, which has been caused almost exclusively by the sustained multi-millennium high in solar activity in the 20th century.

But their claims are actually just stupid garbage with no basis in empirical science.

Because subsidies enable them to be sold at a loss.

There has certainly been war over fossil fuels, but there is no evidence the Ukraine war is one of them. And there is in fact no discernible climate chaos for fossil fuels to have fueled, beyond the normal variations typical of the Holocene.

Like, if you really want to stop eyeglass monopolists from making money, it will definitely help to leave your vision uncorrected....

I am not going to address climate denialism in this thread, unless you have stunning new evidence.

The topic is the Ukraine war and its implications for fossil fuel use in the foreseeable future.

Depriving Russian oligarchs of funds by stopping consumption of Russian fossil fuels is now on the table, and this has beneficial environmental implications if we do not replace said fossil fuels with fossil fuels from other sources.

That is my claim.

[Steve_American]

But they are actually just makin' $#!+ up.

Even though such cuts will have almost no effect on climate.

The net effects of CO2 emissions are beneficial, as it fertilizes plants but has almost no effect on climate.

If it needs to waste a lot of money on hysterical nonscience.

I.e., a Professor of Hysterical Anti-Fossil-Fuel Nonscience.

However, there is actually no reason to believe any such nonscience. The BBC merely decided to give every blathering anti-fossil-fuel ignoramus a platform.

No, such measures will have almost no effect on global warming, which has been caused almost exclusively by the sustained multi-millennium high in solar activity in the 20th century.

But their claims are actually just stupid garbage with no basis in empirical science.

Because subsidies enable them to be sold at a loss.

There has certainly been war over fossil fuels, but there is no evidence the Ukraine war is one of them. And there is in fact no discernible climate chaos for fossil fuels to have fueled, beyond the normal variations typical of the Holocene.

Like, if you really want to stop eyeglass monopolists from making money, it will definitely help to leave your vision uncorrected....

Lurkers, I and others on this site have already proven that he is actually just makin' $#!+ up.

There not a gram of reality in any of his assertions.

And yet, he keeps making the same old assertions with zero evidence.
.

[BlutoSays]

I do not think that fossil fuels are needed even as a hedge risk. We can use other greener technologies for that too.

And one way to transition away from fossil fuels would be to use greener technologies as the solution for the unaddressed problem of stoppages from fossil fuels.

No. You can't just wish things and they happen. The manufacturing base isn't there to do it overnight. Hell, ya gave up Afghanistan, a big source of lithium needed for batteries.

You leftists have NO strategic thought. You just know you want things and make boneheaded decisions to force things that won't work.

Your green technologies cannot meet baseload. It's a fact.

You sit in the dark. I'm not.


While you're at it, go talk to China and tell them to stop using fossil fuels. YEAH! I'm sure they'll get right on that.

[Pants-of-dog]

Your green technologies cannot meet baseload. It's a fact.

This is incorrect.

In Canada, we have a province called Quebec. Provinces are like states in the USA, but much bigger.

Quebec has a population of 8.6 million people. Their entire electrical baseload is supplied by greener technologies.

So, if your claim was true, Quebec’s use of greener technologies would be not true. It is true, therefore your claim is wrong.

[BlutoSays]

This is incorrect.

In Canada, we have a province called Quebec. Provinces are like states in the USA, but much bigger.

Quebec has a population of 8.6 million people. Their entire electrical baseload is supplied by greener technologies.

So, if your claim was true, Quebec’s use of greener technologies would be not true. It is true, therefore your claim is wrong.

No, you are wrong. Your population does not equate to the population of the U.S. Green energy cannot meet baseload.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, you are wrong. Your population does not equate to the population of the U.S. Green energy cannot meet baseload.

I never claimed that the populations were the same.

I merely pointed out that a large, industrialised, modern society could easily have its electricity needs met solely through greener technologies.

The logical inference is that other large, industrialised, modern societies could also do so without any loss of quality of life.

This is true even if the populations of two countries are not similar.

[Truth To Power]

I am not going to address climate denialism

Why use such a misleading and disingenuous term?

in this thread, unless you have stunning new evidence.

There is no stunning new evidence. Just like climate change, the evidence is much the same as it has always been, as anyone can look out their window and confirm for themselves.

[Pants-of-dog]

Why use such a misleading and disingenuous term?

As far as I can tell, it is the clearest and most truthful term.

There is no stunning new evidence. Just like climate change, the evidence is much the same as it has always been, as anyone can look out their window and confirm for themselves.

Yes, we discussed these events and you dismiss the heatwaves, flooding, et cetera, that people experience.

So let us look at these direct experiences we see today:

The cost of living has increased dramatically because of the high fuel prices. Removing ourselves from the teat of fossil fuels would prevent these rapid price increases.

So even if we wish to believe that climate change is a conspiracy, it still makes sense to eschew fossil fuels as soon as possible.

[QatzelOk]

Removing ourselves from the teat of fossil fuels would prevent these rapid price increases.

So even if we wish to believe that climate change is a conspiracy, it still makes sense to eschew fossil fuels as soon as possible.

Electric cars would mean snuggling our mouths up against the teat of lithium and other rare-earth metals. And this "teat" attachment will mean many more wars for resources.

It's the teat of "the state" (the one that is always empowering entrepreneurs, like Canada has done in its history) that is toxic. The railroads killed the first nations and the Métis, and that was the entrepreneur group that "created Canada."

Many rich Western countries are similar in OS.