Earth Hour

Status
Not open for further replies.

1138

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
85
I'm tired of people preaching about global warming to me when they don't even know what an interglacial is... or the fact they've been happening about every 100k years for the past 450,000 years. For the last 400,000 they were a normal cycle, but now this one is because I drive an SUV.

It's not just climate change that's the issue.

There's also peak oil, which is actually an even worse problem. It doesn't get a lot of press now when the oil prices are low, but everyone should be aware that there's only a finite amount of that stuff. More importantly, it's getting harder to increase production rates to keep up with demand - more and more energy is needed to get at it. Different groups have different predictions for when we can no longer increase production to meet demand but it's in the 5 to 30 year range.

Oil shale and tar sands won't be enough to help this. While there's a lot of it, you can't get the oil out of it fast enough to meet demand. Drilling the in Arctic? Likewise.

There have been "big" offshore finds recently in the range of billions of barrels. That only lasts 20 years at most given current oil demand, but again, it's not the total amount that matters but the rate you can produce it. It's pretty useless if you need an extra 5 million barrels per day to keep the lights on but can only extract 1 million.

Coal and natural gas? Those will run out too.

It's just simply much better to switch away from fuels that are going to be exhausted in the short term (20 to 100 years, including coal) as early as possible. If you wait till they run out, switching is impossible (e.g. building a power plant requires oil). Nuclear power supplemented by solar thermal, wind and hydro where feasible is far more sustainable in the long run. Conservation now will stretch out the energy supplies so we have a chance to do a massive build-up of other energy bases (it takes years to build a nuclear power plant).

Nuclear is actually much better than many environmentalists give it credit. It's just a politically charged topic combined with a lot of public ignorance.

So in short, whether it's anthropogenic climate change (which is real as far as the science is concerned), peak oil, or politics (countries are willing to fight wars to get energy), humans should reduce fossil fuel usage. And we should reduce it as fast as possible - because it takes time to build up the alternatives and we can't afford to wait much longer to get started.
 
Last edited:

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
6,355
Location
Flushing, NY
So in short, whether it's anthropogenic climate change (which is real as far as the science is concerned), peak oil, or politics (countries are willing to fight wars to get energy), humans should reduce fossil fuel usage.
Add in the fact that fossil fuel use produces toxic emissions which cause cancers of all sorts to your list of reasons to reduce their use.

I personally didn't do anything for Earth Hour. I certainly believe in the cause, but it's largely a symbolic gesture. Besides, I've been using mostly fluorescent light for the last 20 years, don't own a car, don't fly, pretty much do everything I can on my end to make my footprint as small a possible.
 

LuxLuthor

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
10,409
Location
CT
It's not just climate change that's the issue.

While you raise sensible points in the rest of your post, your first statement is a load of frog poop that is designed to keep people from looking for themselves to see exactly what this "Earth Hour" is actually about.

Doing a bit of reading, this was started in support of, and is all about perpetuating the Al "I'm a Scientist" Gore Global Warming hoax, with his ignorant mug proudly displayed front and center
.

I'll turn my lights off for a symbolic hour, when these hypocrites get rid of their private jets, limosines, ownership of carbon tax trading companies, and allow REAL scientific analysis, use REAL statistical standards and experts; subject their work to peer review, where conscientious questions can be raised without branding them as holocaust type deniers.

I should also mention if this is ever to be considered valid, wider time scales must be used with models of clouds, moisture patterns, volcanic eruptions, jet stream patterns, tides, solar radiation, and explanations of previous cycles of global warming & cooling where no man-made industrialization had yet occurred.

Looking at this idea of turning off your lights from a purely economical standpoint....the effect of restricting energy is to drive down cost. Once you drive down cost, there is no profitability for energy alternative exploration and development. So if you want to speed up the movement towards sustainable forms of energy (which I do support), you should increase your energy use and drive up the cost. Or perhaps pray for a war with Iran where the straits of Hormuz will be blocked, sending the price of a gallon of gasoline up to $50+.

PS.) I wish they had the balls to at least stick to their guns using the term "Global Warming" instead of changing the pretext now to "Climate Change" which is a meaningless term, since every second is a climate change from the previous one.
 
Last edited:

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
6,355
Location
Flushing, NY
Looking at this idea of turning off your lights from a purely economical standpoint....the effect of restricting energy is to drive down cost. Once you drive down cost, there is no profitability for energy alternative exploration and development.
Energy costs have little to do with profitability. Energy suppliers, gas stations, whatever, generally tack a certain amount onto what it costs them when they sell the energy. This amount is more or less fixed. Suppliers of crude WILL make more by raising the price of crude, but everyone else down the chain more or less ends up making the same profit per gallon regardless of the price at the pump. Suppliers of crude have zero interest in investing some of their profits into developing alternatives. They seem to prefer building artificial islands and half-mile skyscrapers with the profits instead.

On another note, if you drive the the price of oil low enough through conservation, or simply by getting enough of the population to use alternatives, then it may be unprofitable for anybody to supply oil.

I'll grant your point that sustained high prices will also encourage a changeover. Problem is OPEC is expert at manipulating prices. They'll keep prices high just up until the point where people start making noise about alternatives, and then magically drop them. Fortunately, with demand from other parts of the world now driving up prices, it looks like those days are over. We ARE headed towards an era where conventional sources are getting more expensive while alternatives are remaining the same or getter cheaper. It may take 2 decades for a complete changeover based almost purely on sound economics, but it finally looks like it'll happen.
 

LuxLuthor

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
10,409
Location
CT
Energy costs have little to do with profitability.
Once you drive down cost, there is no profitability for energy alternative exploration and development. So if you want to speed up the movement towards sustainable forms of energy (which I do support), you should increase your energy use and drive up the cost.

You misunderstood the "profitability for energy alternative exploration and development" to which I was referring.

I don't give a rhodent's dungpile about OPEC or inter-galactic conglomerates like ExxonMobil, let alone their manipulated profits...nor do I see them as the most likely sources of alternative energy creation.

I am referring to the extraordinary costs of discovery, design, production, marketing, advertising, maintenance, etc. of alternative technologies (including nuclear, hydrogen, natural gas, solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, fuel cell, battery powered, etc.) that are not viable when existing energy prices are cheap.

If you honestly believe that a drop in demand for oil based energy of say 10-15% will not lead to a severe drop in world oil prices, you need to do some basic financial research.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top