[Prof_Chomsky]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Correlation/Causation? Now Britain is switching over to gas but they're also taxing carbon. Which one seems more likely as cause for decrease in emissions? Switching over to natural gas or carbon taxing? I know where my money is. Not where the Doc, Phys.org and the Prof's is but that's what makes me a proud "denier," I guess.

Carbon taxing and the switching over to greener fossil fuels like natural gas go hand-in-hand. Carbon taxes make dirty fuels like coal even more expensive which creates an incentive to switch to something cheaper and greener like natural gas. Meanwhile the money made from the carbon tax is invested in lowering the cost of things like electric vehicles and solar panels which will reap even greater rewards in the future.
Obviously nothing operates in a vacuum, but the logic is there and so is the empirical evidence.

[N_Fiddledog]

The difference is the switch to natural gas is market driven as opposed to government imposed. Also unlike windmills and carbon taxes natural gas works at decreasing GHG emissions.

But you guys say you like natural gas now, do you? Good for you. Welcome to the 21st century.

How about nuclear? Are you allowed to come out as for that yet?

Oh and, empirical evidence, my butt. Evidence of what?

[Thanos]

The concrete and indisputable empirical evidence on coal causing killer smog, acid rain, black lung disease, and ash-poisoned waterways is there on the record, and has been for multiple decades, unless you want to start saying those things are all a bunch of lefty BS too.

[N_Fiddledog]

Thanos Thanos:

The concrete and indisputable empirical evidence on coal causing killer smog, acid rain, black lung disease, and ash-poisoned waterways is there on the record, and has been for multiple decades, unless you want to start saying those things are all a bunch of lefty BS too.

Why? Who said there wasn't problems with coal?

My point was the market driven switch to natural gas has decreased the need for coal.

Added nuclear energy would decrease it even more.

[DrCaleb]

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

Obviously nothing operates in a vacuum, but the logic is there and so is the empirical evidence.

You aren't going to convince anyone with a logic deficiency that implementing a carbon tax to reduce emissions, and then seeing a reduction in emissions is a direct causal relationship.

[Prof_Chomsky]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

The difference is the switch to natural gas is market driven as opposed to government imposed. Also unlike windmills and carbon taxes natural gas works at decreasing GHG emissions.

But you guys say you like natural gas now, do you? Good for you. Welcome to the 21st century.

How about nuclear? Are you allowed to come out as for that yet?

Oh and, empirical evidence, my butt. Evidence of what?

The move to natural gas from coal IS market driven... largely pushed that way through reducing subsidies on coal because it is dirty, and imposing carbon taxes on it. Think how cheap coal was 15 years ago compared with today...

I've always liked natural gas. Environmentalists have also largely been in favour of it. Same goes for nuclear. I, and most big players in the energy revolution agree nuclear is the gateway\transition energy to the green revolution.

Yes, there will always be insane hippies with blue hair that are gender fluid who don't believe in any energy other than bio-toilet methane, but they also don't believe in using soap and have been high since 1982.

Doing the right thing for the environment isn't a win\lose black\white situation with one side completely right, or believing we need to go back to the stone ages.

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

Obviously nothing operates in a vacuum, but the logic is there and so is the empirical evidence.

You aren't going to convince anyone with a logic deficiency that implementing a carbon tax to reduce emissions, and then seeing a reduction in emissions is a direct causal relationship.

Very well, oh great and powerful Oz. You explain it in a way that doesn't operate on the fallacy of correlation equalling causation then.

Is the new improved Doctor Data version going to show how it isn't the market driven switch to natural gas but the government imposed carbon tax causing the decreased need for coal?

Apparently there's "empirical evidence."

Oh and Prof, if you've always been in favor of natural gas and nuclear you sound like more the kind of environmentalist I am then. But trust me, the government solution environmentalists aren't on board with us.

[N_Fiddledog]

From the American Green party's "Green New Deal."

$1:

Halt any investment in fossil fuel infrastructure, including natural gas, and phase out all fossil fuel power plants. Phase out nuclear power and end nuclear subsidies.

https://www.gp.org/green_new_deal

I know the "Green New Deal" AOC was pushing excluded nuclear. I don't remember it as even mentioning natural gas.

[Prof_Chomsky]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

Obviously nothing operates in a vacuum, but the logic is there and so is the empirical evidence.

You aren't going to convince anyone with a logic deficiency that implementing a carbon tax to reduce emissions, and then seeing a reduction in emissions is a direct causal relationship.

Very well, oh great and powerful Oz. You explain it in a way that doesn't operate on the fallacy of correlation equalling causation then.

Is the new improved Doctor Data version going to show how it isn't the market driven switch to natural gas but the government imposed carbon tax causing the decreased need for coal?

Apparently there's "empirical evidence."

Oh and Prof, if you've always been in favor of natural gas and nuclear you sound like more the kind of environmentalist I am then. But trust me, the government solution environmentalists aren't on board with us.

We likely are closer aligned than you'd think
Just keep in mind people who support the environment don't all agree anymore than people who want to ignore the environment are. There's shades on both sides. There's people on the right that think we should open pit mine coal, fish the oceans to death, and dump all our garbage in the river but I'm not equating them to you.

I'm a realist. Natural gas, and nuclear keep our lifestyle alive cheaply while we work toward 100% renewable emission-less energy. Done right, nuclear can be 100% safe and keep us sustained for decades while other technologies get implemented and come down in cost.

[DrCaleb]

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

I'm a realist. Natural gas, and nuclear keep our lifestyle alive cheaply while we work toward 100% renewable emission-less energy. Done right, nuclear can be 100% safe and keep us sustained for decades while other technologies get implemented and come down in cost.

Those Traveling Wave reactors that Bill Gates is paying to develop will definitely be a game changer. Also, compressed air storage for renewables is the most efficient and cost effective.

[Prof_Chomsky]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

I'm a realist. Natural gas, and nuclear keep our lifestyle alive cheaply while we work toward 100% renewable emission-less energy. Done right, nuclear can be 100% safe and keep us sustained for decades while other technologies get implemented and come down in cost.

Those Traveling Wave reactors that Bill Gates is paying to develop will definitely be a game changer. Also, compressed air storage for renewables is the most efficient and cost effective.

He really is a visionary. But there are several nuclear designs that are viable and foolproof that have been around for decades. People are just too dumb to see past man-made disasters like Chernobyl, while ignoring global warming.

[Thanos]

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

He really is a visionary. But there are several nuclear designs that are viable and foolproof that have been around for decades. People are just too dumb to see past man-made disasters like Chernobyl, while ignoring global warming.

From what I've seen most of the left is as against nuclear/natural gas as they are against coal/oil. Unless you can confirm for me otherwise I'm going to take it as reliable that the rational voices on the liberal side are wildly outnumbered by the ones who want nuclear and ALL fossil fuels banned immediately, regardless of economic or social consequences.

[DrCaleb]

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

I'm a realist. Natural gas, and nuclear keep our lifestyle alive cheaply while we work toward 100% renewable emission-less energy. Done right, nuclear can be 100% safe and keep us sustained for decades while other technologies get implemented and come down in cost.

Those Traveling Wave reactors that Bill Gates is paying to develop will definitely be a game changer. Also, compressed air storage for renewables is the most efficient and cost effective.

He really is a visionary. But there are several nuclear designs that are viable and foolproof that have been around for decades. People are just too dumb to see past man-made disasters like Chernobyl, while ignoring global warming.

When you say the word 'Nuclear' people freak out. That's why there has only been one nuclear plant commissioned in North America since Three Mile Island. At least the traveling wave design is built so that people can't cause an accident. That should help with public opinion on building these reactors quickly.

People are so freaked out by the 'nuclear' term I recall a funny story. A bunch of enviroweenies were protesting a reactor somewhere and a reporter noted when they stopped for a 'banana break', they got a higher does of radiation from the potassium isotopes in the banana than if they had drank all the water coming out of the plant for the whole day.

[Prof_Chomsky]

Thanos Thanos:

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

He really is a visionary. But there are several nuclear designs that are viable and foolproof that have been around for decades. People are just too dumb to see past man-made disasters like Chernobyl, while ignoring global warming.

From what I've seen most of the left is as against nuclear/natural gas as they are against coal/oil. Unless you can confirm for me otherwise I'm going to take it as reliable that the rational voices on the liberal side are wildly outnumbered by the ones who want nuclear and ALL fossil fuels banned immediately, regardless of economic or social consequences.

Seriously just google "environmentalists + nuclear"
The NY Times did a good article on it a couple years ago too. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/18/climate/climate-fwd-green-nuclear.html

I think most scientists that consider themselves environmentalists (and let's be honest, the scientists are the only ones that matter) are realists to the core. Lots of hippy groups are anti-everything, including progress but they can't be allowed to sully good ideas or paint the educated environmentalists with the same brush.

Natural gas is a harder link to find because it's a complicated search. Most environmental groups advocate for a move to natural gas over oil and coal, as well as petrol. But they don't want to back it too hard or you'll get the oil lobby saying "natural gas is green". It's just cleaner than most everything else, so switching over to it makes sense while they build nuclear. Then you move on to solar, geothermal, biomass etc as the tech catches up and the manufacturing costs for those technologies plummet due to mass production.

Everyone wins, the left and the right.

[N_Fiddledog]

I know there are environmentalists who have left their organizations or the general movement and one their many bitches is the refusal to accept the utility of "clean" nuclear energy.

There was that guy who was one of the creators of Greenpeace. I think his name is Patrick Moore. Also that writer for the National Post, Lawrence Solomon. He led an environmental agency of some sort at one time.