Climate Change

The World Needs Innovators, Not Lectures From Teens, to Solve Climate Change

Finger-wagging won't overcome the collective action problems preventing action.

|

Every global climate summit to date has featured lots of tough talk but little action. The United Nations confab in New York that just wrapped up is no different. Nor will anything change in the future unless climate change warriors stop insisting that the world go on an energy diet—and start offering cheaper and cleaner energy options that don't require a lifestyle where transcontinental travel means a boat like the one that the 16-year-old Greta Thunberg took from Sweden to rebuke the world's leaders.

Human-caused global warming is real, but activists have to get real too. They think that they can spur action by simply exaggerating the urgency of climate change. Thunberg insisted that if drastic action to cut emissions isn't taken now, basically the planet as we know it will cease to exist. Likewise, Green New Dealers like Rep. Alexander Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) have been saying that the planet has an "expiration date."

But anyone who has watched Game of Thrones knows that dialing up apocalypse talk alone can't overcome the collective action problem preventing action on climate change. In that drama, Queen Cersei chooses to free-ride rather than join other kingdoms in fighting the forces of Armageddon.

Climate change activists are confronting the same problem—and the more they exaggerate the sacrifices required, the more they'll exacerbate it.

The Sixth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that preserving the planet as we know it will require keeping the global mean surface temperature at no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above the average temperature in the 19th century before the industrial revolution. This is a more stringent target than that set during the 2015 Paris Accords whose goal was to hold the temperature increase to 2 degrees Centigrade.

Allowing emissions to rise more than that would mean planetary change and disruptions, to be sure. For example, coral reefs would be damaged, storms may be worse, and Arctic ice may melt in summers. But it is not clear that this will lead to planetary catastrophe by making cyclones more fierce or droughts more severe, causing mass death. Climate warriors, however, refuse to make such distinctions.

In order to hold the temperature to the 1.5 degrees threshold, the IPCC calculated that the world would have to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 40 to 50 percent by 2030 and completely by 2050. This will mean a total transition from fossil fuels to renewables like wind and solar by 2050, a goal that Ocasio-Cortez has wholeheartedly embraced for the United States.

What would the price tag for this be?

As per the IPCC's own calculations, around $2.4 trillion annually between 2016 and 2035 in 2010 dollars—or about 2.5 percent of the global GDP. To understand just how daunting that is, consider that the total energy investments in the world amount to only around $1.7 trillion right now—which means that the world is being asked to make an additional $45 trillion in investments over 19 years to generate the same amount of energy and improve energy efficiency. The higher costs will mean scaling back First World lifestyles, of course. But they will also mean forcing Third World countries, where many people don't even have electricity, to stay stuck in poverty for many more decades to help out generations a hundred years from now.

This may be a good long-term investment but the upfront costs—both monetary and human—are formidable which makes the politics of climate change intractable. That's why the New York conference didn't go anywhere. The U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres asked countries to up the commitments they'd made four years ago in Paris. Only 65 countries obliged. The biggest polluters just shrugged.

America didn't even request a speaking slot at the event because that would have meant laying out concrete plans for actual cuts. The Australian prime minister was in town but didn't bother showing up. China failed to announce new targets and renewed its calls that developed countries go first—no doubt because it doesn't want to put an anchor around its already limping economy. Likewise, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Trump's new best friend, outlined more investments in renewables but remains committed to coal projects for the foreseeable future. And the European Union, historically a leader in pushing for emission cuts, didn't signal any intention to reach carbon neutrality by 2050.

Climate activists are blaming much of this on Trump's Paris pullout. But that's head-in-the-sand evasion because even if Trump were the Joan of Arc of climate change, he couldn't ensure results. America enthusiastically led the way for the 1997 Kyoto Treaty that convinced many countries to pledge cuts, but almost none delivered before President George Bush bailed. And the reason is those that dutifully made the cuts would end up harming their economy for no gain if others didn't follow through. So it was more expedient to promise and leave.

Climate activists are now counting on woke capital to bring these countries to heel by withholding investments from polluting nations. And several asset fund managers did indeed commit to a net-zero emissions portfolio by 2050. But the investor community as a whole is going to face the same collective action problem that the international community is confronting; namely, that if one of them foregoes lucrative investments, there will be just that much more temptation for others.

The better way might be offering clean fuel options that are so attractive that consumers simply can't turn them down. Phone users did not switch from landlines to cell phones because they were forced to do so. They did so automatically and voluntarily because the new technology offered massive advantages relative to the costs that the old one didn't.

Something equivalent needs to happen on the energy front to make fossil fuels obsolete. The most promising alternative on the horizon so far isn't renewables, but nuclear. Yet environmentalists are mostly opposed to it. This was reasonable when nuclear's upfront capital costs—namely to build layers of safety in reactors—were astronomical and options to safely dispose of spent radioactive fuel weren't great. But the new generation of nuclear reactors is overcoming at least some of these problems. For example, Bill Gate's Terrapower, a traveling wave reactor, is experimenting with using depleted uranium, a waste product leftover from conventional reactors.

The most revolutionary fuels are ones that no one can even imagine yet. But they will only materialize if today's young environmental activists don't skip school to spend two weeks boating across the ocean to attend a summit. Rather than lecturing world leaders, they'd help more if they stayed in class, listened, and learned in order to become future innovators.

A version of this column appeared in The Week.

NEXT: Maybe the Media Mishandled the New Brett Kavanaugh Book Because It's Mostly a Dud

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This kid outright accuses people of stealing her childhood.

    Exactly how was that done?

    She is gaslighting us by claiming inaction has already harmed her.

    1. I usually roll my eyes at white privilege talk but holy moly this fits. I have a tough time imaging anyone other than a white Western privileged child thinking they are entitled to a certain things from the world.

      1. And of course it isn’t due to anything other than her cultural and ideological upbringing.

        1. “How dare you!”

          I heard that her parents started taking her to protests when she was in 1st grade. However, I’m sure she came to her conclusions as a result of her own independent thought and intellect.

          /s

          1. Saw this great meme on Facebook the other day where this Greta person says “you stole my childhood!” And right below that is a photo of this tiny Asian girl—maybe 6 or 7–with a shovel who’s digging in a rice paddy or something.

            There is definitely some entitled and some utterly delusional thinking going on in this girl’s head and I blame her parents for brainwashing her.

            1. “I’m sure she came to her conclusions as a result of her own independent thought and intellect.”

              A commenter on WUWT asked, “What’s the difference between Greta and a shopping cart?

              A: A shopping cart has a mind of its own.

        2. “And of course it isn’t due to anything other than her cultural and ideological upbringing.”

          This kid has been indoctrinated from the day she learned to speak, so she never learned to think.

          1. Greta is mostly evidence of brainwashing and child abuse. Sort of like Shikha.

            “Human-caused global warming is real” – in the minds of the scientifically illiterate.

            Astoundingly, I find myself in agreement with Shikha to this extent: We need less finger-wagging. In every other regard, Shikha is as irrational as ever.

            1. You probably may be imagine the crap I get from Warmites when I share my collection of Global Warming Skepticism links at
              http://www.plusaf.com/homepagepix/__pix-nav/_global-warming-links.htm

              Be sure to click the “Orbital Variations” link on that page.
              It is one of the most powerful explanations of why CO2 has a little less than nothing to do with Global Climate Change.

              But hey, the Warmites refuse to click any of the links… they tell me that the links are wrong. Typical Warmite ‘logic.’

              🙁

        3. I literally hate every article from shika. I didn’t enjoy this because of the assumptions of climate change but she made an effort to point out some relevant points in moving forward. I’m personally still in the camp of there’s too many god damn variables for us to make a judgement. I find she writes in the settled argument tone. Nothing in science, no matter what branch, is settled. That’s the beauty of it. For a senior analyst at a company called reason, she should know better. Frankly I still think she’s a closet socialist. Regardless, she tried stating good points from problem solvers position. Hopefully more to come

          1. I have come to the same conclusions after months and months of observation. 🙁

      2. “”Western privileged child thinking they are entitled to a certain things from the world””

        What concern is the emissions of truck delivering need food to the starving children of Africa?

        1. Need = needed

        2. Several years ago, the President of Zambia refused shipments of food from the US for its starving people. Why? Because the food from the US was GM, so the President of Zambia initially rejected the food for his starving people. His primary concern was maintaining the export market to Europe. After public outcry and consultation with some scientists, he changed his mind. I wonder how many people starved to death in his country while the process was on g.

          Other African leaders expressed worry about the safett of GM food and also about the effect on their European export market. Not that they had proof that it’s harmful but it’s *possible* it might be harmful and we don’t have proof that isn’t (the pre-cautionary principle).

          Here is an interesting article about the situation:

          https://worldpress.org/Africa/737.cfm

          1. “safety…”

            I wish we could edit what we write. My phone keypad is too small to use easily.

            1. Yes… a missing function here…
              AND an option to do what FB doesn’t do… offer voting with choices like….
              Strongly Agree/Disagree
              Love/Hate the comment/post

              etc…
              But hey, human interface designers fall in love with their creations and know that improvement is unnecessary and complaints only come from ignorant people. 🙂

    2. Her parents harmed her.
      A big part of the process of growing up is learning that the world is not going to be what you think it should be and learning how to deal with that basic fact about existence. Her parents seem to have utterly failed her in this respect.
      If you spend your life complaining about how the entire rest of humanity has fucked it all up for you, you are going to be a miserable person.

      1. Yep. Anyone old enough to complain is old enough to think of a solution. Rebuilding NYC in Orange County, NY is a good solution, but preservationists want to keep it green. My plan B is to sit on the Palisades Clifts and make snarky YouTube videos with a waterlogged Manhattan in the background. There is a reason YU is in Washington Heights and 770 is in Crown Heights.

      2. Sailing transatlantic on a wet boat is one hell of a learning experience.
        The trouble lies in innovating a way to send ten thousand climate conference delegates around the Horn in time to join her in Chilein December.

        https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2019/08/abashed-by-miss-thunbergs-example-other.html

        1. It also created between ten and one hundred times the carbon emissions that flying commercial would have done.

          1. Sailing a boat doesn’t create its carbon footprint, it amortizes it.

            Spare us the usual carbon fiber rant- the eight tonne vessel in question went carbon-negative roughly a hundred thousand passenger-miles ago.

            1. But having the crew flown over to sail the ship back, etc….if she’d just stayed home and ranted on teleconference, none of that would be generated.

      3. “A big part of the process of growing up is learning that the world is not going to be what you think it should be and learning how to deal with that basic fact about existence.”

        Growing up, my parents two favorite lines were “Life’s not fair” and “The world doesn’t owe you a living”.

        Of course, they weren’t woke, so…

        1. The millennial generation apparently wants to prove your parents wrong. I shudder to think what will happen if they succeed.

        2. While we’re at it, how about ‘Life’s not peaceful?’ Or are you snowflakes trying to prove my Viking ancestors wrong? 😛

          I’m actually fine with your refrain as long as it’s not just an excuse for the ever-failing social systems that Boomers love to build.

    3. What’s notable about Greta’s temper tantrums is how chock full of appeals to authority they are. “These people know more than you do, so don’t question them and obey all their recommendations!” What stands out about Swedish culture over the last 100 years or so, is that they are extremely passive people who assume that authorities are inherently beneficial and anyone who takes on the mantle of “expert” always has the best interests of everyone in mind.

      It’s not really a coincidence that Dag Hammarskjold, the man responsible for framing the UN as a globalist world government that needed to favor the third world over the first world, was a Swede.

      They’re really the perfect mouthpieces to push any kind of globalist authoritarian scheme.

      1. IOW, they are progressives. Progressives like to talk about civil rights and voting but really their approach is to have government experts run things for everyone else.

        In Germany, you are considered a real oddball if you want to teach your children at home. They are aghast and look at you as if you have 2 heads. No offense to those who have two heads.

        1. Rule by experts that are altuistic and wise is the soul of Progressivism.

          1. That’s because progressives always count themselves among the altruistic and wise, and therefore assume they will be in charge. In other words, they count themselves among the Party faithful.

            1. And they expect to be among the nomenklatura and not just a plebian comrade.

              1. Arg, “plebeian”. My kingdom for an Edit button.

    4. Well, the narrative is that not only have people harmed the planet, but it will be total doom.

      That’s the same as telling a 4 year old, your going to die, all your friends and relatives are going to die and eventually the entire world will die. All true, but not what you tell a 4 year old.

      So… growing up that all your life, what do you expect?

      So yes, I suspect to some extend her childhood was effected.

      As for shaming politicians. They are big boys/girls. If they can’t deal with it they need to find another job. They need to read between the lines, adjust policy if necessary etc. etc. or get out.

      Price and if necessary tax things according to their real cost and the problem will solve itself (assuming we can agree on the real costs)

      1. “”So yes, I suspect to some extend her childhood was effected.””

        She specially said stolen.

        “As for shaming politicians. They are big boys/girls. If they can’t deal with it they need to find another job.

        Agreed. That also applies to people who are adult enough to take a podium to shame politicians.

      2. I grew up being told the world was going to end in nuclear fire. I was smart enough to see through the bullshit and crunch the numbers, and even worst case it wasn’t. I also turned out reasonably stable.

        Someone needs to fuckstart the little cunt’s head.

        Also:

        “The Sixth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that preserving the planet as we know it will require keeping the global mean surface temperature at no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above the average temperature in the 19th century before the industrial revolution. ”

        So, they want to maintain The Little Ice Age?

        1. “I was smart enough to see through the bullshit and crunch the numbers, and even worst case it wasn’t. I also turned out reasonably stable.”

          Two things:

          1. Please provide the numbers that you “crunched”, thus proving that there would be no nuclear war.

          2. You just called a 16 girl a cunt. You are not stable…reasonably, or otherwise.

    5. And demands action that will keep poor brown kids in poverty.

    6. Um, there is no man made global warming. Where is the valid scientific report showing man is causing to global warming? No one has ever provided proof to this simple question. The whole basis is a fraud, how in the world would you expect 0.003 to 0.0036 amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to cause global warming? Where just one volcano can cause that rise. And historically CO2 is at very low levels (let’s use 400ppm). It has been as high as 3,000ppm and the planet was just fine. It is nothing but the natural ebb and flow of the Sun. Then other smaller factors like the tilt axis of the earth. Noting the ICCP doesn’t even include water vapor in their models. Where they rely upon 32 government models (100% which have been wrong by the way), how can you blindly accept their science when they include 0.0036 CO2 yet leave out 4.0% water vapor? Where are the answers to these simple questions? But no, the article just jumps to the conclusion man is causing global warming and rushes to ‘let’s divvy up the money!’ Notice how the whole polar bear story has disappeared? You know why? because there are MORE polar bears than ever. How about the climatgate emails proving the scientists at East Angelica University in the UK (which the ICCP relies upon most heavily) were fraudulently creating data? And why haven’t the 32 computer models EVER been right? So they have all been 100% wrong and people want to rush to spend trillions of dollars?? Ahh, I’ve answered my own question. Money, money, money. Interesting Michael Mann, who is not a climate scientist but a low professor teaching undergrads meteorology, refused to release his data upon which his hockey stick graph is based. He just lost a huge lawsuit and will be paying threw the nose the other parties’ attorney fees. His hockey stick graph has proven to be false. All the predictions of the climate alarmists have been false. Every single one. Yet the article above just automatically states man is causing warming and 95% of the article is about money. Sorry, but man is not causing warming.

    7. I’m astounded at the ignorance and arrogance iterated in this thread. She’s not gaslighting anyone. I don’t blame her for being outraged; I’m outraged myself. People who deny the very real and present, not to mention future, danger of the effects of climate change have their heads in the sand. Some people think they know things by osmosis, without doing ANY due diligence research. OR they get their “news” from tertiary or invalid resources, without fact checking it for accuracy.

      How was her childhood stolen? It depends on one’s interpretation and understanding of the context. At this point, all the world leaders who are standing by and doing nothing, who are denying it exists, are condemning the planet and all its people. In fact, there are only a few world leaders at this point who are climate change deniers, and they are all conservative, ultra right-wing with ties to fossil fuel industries and big money. But the scientific community is united – climate change is real and man-made climate change is a huge contributor to this planetary crisis.

      And in fact, one doesn’t have to be a trained scientist with years of experience to understand the science behind climate change and its detrimental effects. Anyone with a brain and critical thinking skills who is motivated to learn can do so. There are a wealth of articles and videos available from credible sources. (And a number of instructive articles/papers that can help someone differentiate a credible, viable source from one that’s not). So there’s no excuse to be uninformed or misinformed.

      I applaud young people like Greta; perhaps they will be the catalysts that motivate world leaders and others to actually DO something. She’s smart, articulate, and courageous. And she’s NOT wrong. I would be proud to have her as my daughter or granddaughter.

  2. Fuck yea Shikha!

    Just when I thought you couldn’t be any dumber… you do something like this… and totally redeem yourself!

    srlsy tho good piece

    1. No doubt. She’s branching out, it seems.

      Maybe she’s using a ghostwriter now?

      1. She’s really not so bad when the subject isn’t immigration or Trump.

    2. Wasn’t she cool with that GOT ref? Super cereal!

    3. Thankfully, Every global climate summit to date has featured lots of tough talk but little action.

      FIFY

  3. Does anyone else pick up a “child soldier” vibe from Greta?

    1. Yes. She is a tool of her owners, nothing more.

      1. What a lot of people don’t realize is that she’s on the autism spectrum. If you’ve ever known someone like this, they tend to focus like lasers on specific issues. Often, these things are complex systems or items like mathematics, or computers, or engineering. this case, it’s AGW.
        She’s likely extremely intelligent, and it’s possible her parents have nothing to do with it but are indulging her passion for it.

    2. She would send you to the woodchipper if she could. And if it was carbon-neutral. Something nicely wind-powered. Sucks if the wind dies before you do though.

    3. She was used by the left as a useful tool. No one dare criticize a child without being accused of being mean for kids. So she can get up on stage and be utterly irrational and hate-mongering, spouting nonsense figure, and no one dare say she’s wrong. Because that would be mean.

      There is a special place in hell for adults who use children in this way.

      1. Yeah, anyone too young to throw a punch is too young be the front person in a culture war.

    4. Wasn’t she in the movie “Children of the Corn”?

    5. A child soldier, or a chimp with an AK-47?

    6. Before she became the poster child of the warming cult she was in a child film star.

      https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0087050/videoplayer/vi2112292377?ref_=m_tt_vi_1

  4. Eco extremists get votes and support… Till gasoline and electricity prices quadruple and more! Then sanity returns to voters, and eco extremists get voted out. It has happened in states in the USA, and has happened / is happening in other nations. We have to live in the real world… We need energy!

    Go nuclear! And enough of the endless eco lawsuits that quadruple the costs (especially through endless delays) of nuclear power! Safer, smaller nuclear power plants are available now, and progress continues. “Safe salt” reactors for example. https://hitecher.com/news/moltex-energy-to-build-a-safe-nuclear-reactor

    1. Then sanity returns to voters, and eco extremists get voted out.

      One of the reasons that many of their more extreme supporters are communists.

      1. Being an environmentalist means never having to say your sorry because you convinced people to use plastic bags to save the trees.

      2. Which is funny because if you want to talk about which economic system has hurt the world the most, it’s the commies. Hands down.

    2. I think Japan has put the fear of nuclear into everyone. Is it not still spewing radiation into the North Pacific years after the fact? What is worse, a few degrees of temperature that naturally fluctuate, or a sea full of irradiated life?

        1. OMG, I ffin’ love that movie!

      1. “On April 2, 2014, it (UN agency)published a report into the Fukushima disaster and said:

        “The doses to the general public, both those incurred during the first year and estimated for their lifetimes, are generally low or very low. No discernible increased incidence of radiation-related health effects are expected among exposed members of the public or their descendants.”

        The study noted they did find more cancers in their screening of residents, but said that was due to the high-level of screening they conducted.

        “Increased rates of detection of [thyroid] nodules, cysts and cancers have been observed during the first round of screening; however, these are to be expected in view of the high detection efficiency [using modern high-efficiency ultrasonography]. Data from similar screening protocols in areas not affected by the accident imply that the apparent increased rates of detection among children in Fukushima Prefecture are unrelated to radiation exposure.”
        https://www.worldnomads.com/travel-safety/eastern-asia/japan/how-dangerous-is-the-radiation-in-japan

        1. I was just watching an interview with one of the people that they based a character on in the Chernobyl series. He was there from the beginning. He and his co-worker are about my age and look awfully healthy. Then there are the babushkas of Chernobyl and the hundreds of other people who have lived (and eat food grown there and fish caught in the river) there since right after accident and they are dying of old age. The wildlife seems to be thriving too.

          It’s obvious high doses of radiation are deadly. It’s also obvious that fairly high doses of radiation can cause some cancers especially in children. What doesn’t seem obvious to me anymore is how bad the long term effects of low doses are. If what’s happening in the exclusion zone in Chernobyl is any indication, scientists may need to revisit what we think we know about radiation.

          1. Nobody knows.

            The model used is from studies done after Hiroshima. One problem is that was a large single dose, not a long term low level exposure.

            The other problem as you pointed out is the models assume a linear relationship which is almost certainly not the case at low doses.

      2. And then:
        “Deaths from Fukushima
        In the case of Fukushima, although 40-50 people experienced physical injury or radiation burns at the nuclear facility, the number of direct deaths from the incident are quoted to be zero. However, mortality from radiation exposure was not the only threat to human health: it’s estimated that around 1,600 people died as a result of evacuation procedures and stress-induced factors. This figure ranges between 1,000-1,600 deaths from evacuation (the evacuation of populations affected by the earthquake and tsunami at the time can make sole attribution to the nuclear disaster challenging). Stress-induced deaths affected mostly older people; more than 90 percent of mortality occurred in individuals over the age of 66…”
        https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-chernobyl-and-fukushima

        Yep, more than 1,000 people died fleeing the radiation at Fukushima, which killed exactly zero people.
        Radiation is not nearly as scary as stupidity.

        1. On radioactive wastes (ionizing radiation), Google “radiation hormesis”, and see USA government study of the Taiwan thing (accidental experiment on humans) at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477708/ … Low-dose radioactivity is actually GOOD for you! Seriously!!!

        2. On “helminthic therapy”, AKA gut parasite worms are GOOD for you, too, see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20054982 (USA government again) or others …
          Well anyway, WHAT is a summary of what I am saying? I thought I heard you asking about that, through my tri-cornered aluminum-foil hat, as I am sitting here…

          HERE is your summary: Holyweird is WAY off base, with their horror movies! A Giant Gut-Parasitical Radioactive Teenage Mutant Ninja Tapeworm would be GOOD for us!!! Bring it ON, ah says!!!

          (OK, jokes to the side, low-dose radiation is STILL actually GOOD for us!)

          1. If you’re any indication, slaver, I’ll pass.

            And to think I thought it was the shit you eat Whihny.

            Now fuck off slaver.

        3. Sevo, can you tell me the exact percentage who died during evacuation because they were fleeing an earthquake, a tsunami, or a nuclear accident?

          You quote an article that says it’s challenging to know how many to attribute to the nuclear accident, then you arbitrarily claim over a 1,000 died fleeing the nuclear accident. You cannot back that up which what you have quoted. Do you really read what you post?

          1. Chili Dogg
            September.30.2019 at 8:07 pm
            “Sevo, can you tell me the exact percentage who died during evacuation because they were fleeing an earthquake, a tsunami, or a nuclear accident?”
            No, I can’t but that number is far lower than the source claimed for the other peripheral issues:
            https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/02/20/national/post-quake-illnesses-kill-more-in-fukushima-than-2011-disaster#.WTmK7-Xyu01
            The fact remains that ZERO died from radiation and many more died fleeing from it. Care to dispute that?

            “…Do you really read what you post?”
            Yes, I do. And you should too, before making an ass of yourself.

    3. Gilets jaunes!!

      That’s what happens when the public realizes that these religious fanatics have gone too far. (I’m looking at you Californication)

  5. Even my kids have gotten sick of the Enviro nonsense. They have been told for 10 years that they are ruining the environment, and only they can save it by…um…not using straws…and….recycling? They have seen that nothing has changed, and they are utterly bored now by the nonsense.

    If you poll people in the US, everyone is concerned about the environment. But nobody puts it high on their list of priorities. In Europe, this meant that politicians could pass onerous environmental restrictions and its citizens would shrug. The same will happen here as soon as the left gets in charge.

    1. Even my kids have gotten sick of the Enviro nonsense. They have been told for 10 years that they are ruining the environment, and only they can save it by…um…not using straws…and….recycling? They have seen that nothing has changed, and they are utterly bored now by the nonsense.

      Yeah, there was a big push to make it part of the elementary school curriculum a while ago. Then they discovered that openly injecting religious philosophy like this is a surefire way to make the majority of kids between ambivalent and openly hostile.

      The same thing is happening with the anti-bullying campaign. “Stop bullying me.” gets used legitimately, sarcastically and everything in between for anything even remotely grammatically appropriate.

      “Hey are you going to go see the new Star Wars movie when it comes out?”
      “No, quit bullying me!”

      I figure we’re two decades away from reclaiming the historical use.

      1. In fact, now the 3rd graders are mocking foreign accents when they mock the bullying, as in: “Why you bully me?”. Utterly refreshing.

    2. If we break the socialist movement in Germany, we outflank the global socialist movement. I am working on it. What’s the current controversial trend among Lutherans?

      😉

      1. I think they all pretty much agree that herring goes with any meal. Lutefisk is like the gefilta fish of Northern Europe. You have to be born into it.

    3. Your kids are smarter than most apparently, cuz this evil twit has many a follower. I say why not punk them all, tell them you’re right – the world is ending tomorrow, now down in the bunker with the lot of you…

      *swallows key*

  6. “This planet is too hot!” said Scoldilocks.

    1. It’s a blistering 56F in Stockholm, Sweden right now.

  7. The World Needs Innovators, Not Lectures From Teens, to Solve Climate Change

    I don’t think there is anything to “solve”.

    And that kid’s cringe-inducing performance was difficult to watch. Adults need to act like adults and stop scaring children.

    1. I don’t think there is anything to “solve”.

      If you back translate to local phenomenon, it’s like saying we need innovators to solve thermostat change.

      1. innovators to solve thermostat change.

        There are people working on this you know and come up with new products all the time to better control, reduce inefficiency and temperature variance in your HVAC system.

        1. There are people working on this you know and come up with new products all the time to better control, reduce inefficiency and temperature variance in your HVAC system.

          If they’re working on it right now, they better be fucking gone before I get home.

          Better control, reduced inefficiency, and temperature variance in context assume that change is going to happen rather axiomatically. They aren’t solving thermostat change, they’re making it better/more adaptive. Even if they solved the weather phenomenon itself, there would still be issues surrounding budgeting and equipment capabilities and the residents’ particular tastes that would be largely out of their capability to change.

    2. I’m reminded of my friend’s children who apparently wept uncontrollably when Trump win the election, because he was going to deport or murder all of their brown friends. I blame the parents and to a lesser extent the teachers…

    3. There is something to solve. After all, if nothing else, large scale combustion produces all sorts of real pollution. However, we need a solution that would actually work and is not worse than the problem it is trying to solve.

      (The 2 T$/yr ignores the basics of electrical generation as it fails to address storage required for dispatchability and the fact that there is not sufficient room for pumped storage or lithium in the world for batteries to accomplish this)

  8. Coral reefs have survived 250M years of climate changes, ice ages, hot flashes, and most recently, the 4-500 foot sea level rise from 10-15000 years ago.

    They are doing just fine.

    1. Well… I do believe in the position for the Matrix the states humanity is a virus that consumes. Coral may not have survived all of that, but evolved at one favorable jumping off point. I think it it does die, we will find a substitute… Or enough human will die that the environment will return to homeostasis.

    2. But they’re not doing fine.

            1. But Guardian said otherwise, and also informed Tony that it’s Trump’s fault!
              “Study: U.S. Leads World In Reducing CO2 Emissions, While Paris Accord Nations Break Promises”
              […]
              “…Declines were led by the US (-0.5%). This is the ninth time in this century that the US has had the largest decline in emissions in the world. This also was the third consecutive year that emissions in the US declined, though the fall was the smallest over the last three years.
              Carbon emissions from energy use from the US are the lowest since 1992, the year that the UNFCCC came into existence. The next largest decline was in Ukraine (-10.1%)…”
              https://www.dailywire.com/news/study-us-leads-world-reducing-co2-emissions-while-james-barrett

              1. plants in my garden will be disappointed if the CO2 levels go to low. They need it to grow, and release oxygen.

            2. https://www.iflscience.com/environment/think-help-is-on-its-way-for-the-great-barrier-reef-think-again/

              Linked to in that very article.

              Also, the temporary recovery was due to significant government investment, not the free market, for what it’s worth.

              1. What does the failure of the Aussie govt to spend money on the reef have to do with the discussion of the reefs recovering?

                Did you not read that link? You’re not even making sense.

                “Also, the temporary recovery”

                Citation need for temporary. The articles say otherwise.

                “was due to significant government investment,”

                Another citation needed, and don’t think we have forgotten yor claim they aren’t doing fine. The links say they are. You linked to a funding discussion of the Aussie govt as a distraction.

                Are you OK? Did getting STFU that badly really make you incoherent?

                1. I read the whole article Tony linked. Tony obviously didn’t read it, because it has nothing to do with the state of the reefs. It’s about who and how much money will be spent on a campaign to save them. From what, it doesn’t say.

                  Was that your big “gotcha” Tony? Showing everyone you’re stupid and only read headlines?

                2. How about you read the link.

      1. The ones far away from humans are. Coral reef problems are generally due to local pollution. Most notably, sewage effluent from cities and sunscreen from tourists. Fix the sewer system and keep the hippies away, and they recover very quickly.

        1. Coral reef problems are generally due to local pollution.

          ^ This is the thing that probably most pisses me off about political climate change hysteria. Ignore the real problem, we’ve got an agenda to push!

          1. Exactly. Climate alarmism is overshadowing real environmental issues that need to be addressed. The alarmists are the real eco-criminals.

      2. A friend sent me a link a while ago about a scientist who came up with way to save the reefs which are apparently dying because the ocean water is too hot. He was propagating little tiny pieces of coral from the parts that hadn’t died yet and planting them back into the dead reefs and they were growing. I asked my friend why they would grow in the hot ocean water that was killing the reef to begin with. She never answered.

      3. Yo Ton’, I was in Florida last week (that is a whole ‘nother story), and you might be glad to hear about a new report I saw. The report said scientists have learned how to breed coral. I would Google the story and give you a link but I don’t really feel like it. You can do that as well as I can.
        Have a good one.

  9. Shikha has branched out and is now fucking stupid on multiple fronts.

    1. What was stupid about this article?

      1. Either (a) Zeb thinks she is a climate alarmist for daring to say the climate is actually warming, or (b) it has Zeb’s comment attached.

        There’s no doubt the climate is warmer now than, say, 100 years ago. How much is unknowable, because the few reporting points (weather stations) that actually go back that far have changed over the years with new equipment and different surroundings. But spring is sooner, winter later, in some general sense. The last several decades are meaningless, because the models are completely wrong, and the “hottest year on record” usually turns out to be .01 or .001 degrees warmer, well within the error bars. The so-called sea level rise is also mostly bogus, because it usually includes nonsense like seaports just a couple hundred miles apart reporting significant differences in sea level rise, with no allowance made fro ground subsidence. I believe California’s central valley, for instance, has sunk 20+ feet in the last 150 years, presumably from groundwater extraction.

      2. What was stupid about this article?

        Not saying I side with Greta but the fact that this is the *one* immigrant that Shikha opposes is pretty stupid.

        1. Not an immigrant. Or illegal. Yet.

  10. We can reach those carbon goals by switching to nuclear power. But so long as the left and angry teenagers from Sweden refuse to consider nuclear power, we’re not going to solve the problem. Solar and wind is NOT sufficient to power the modern world. Not without battery technology that we not likely to possess in the near future. (Hint, current battery technology is incredibly polluting).

    Nuclear power is the way out of this “energy crisis”. But it’s off the table. No leftist who refuses to consider nuclear energy is truly serious about climate change. If they won’t talk nuclear then they’re just playing a political game and should not be taken seriously.

    1. Yes! Anyone who actually believed the climate would reach a tipping point in 12 years would move heaven and earth to get thousands of nuclear reactors up and running as soon as possible, damn the consequences. Far better millions die in nuclear power accidents every year than the entire population die.

      It’s the most basic AGW litmus test there is.

      1. Anyone who actually believed the climate would reach a tipping point in 12 years would move heaven and earth to get thousands of nuclear reactors up and running as soon as possible

        And would not be investing $14.8 million in beachfront real estate on Martha’s Vineyard.

        1. Well, we already had 8 years proof of his hypocrisy 🙂

    2. “Nuclear power is the way out of this “energy crisis”. But it’s off the table. ”

      Nonsense. It’s off the table in America because it’s too risky for private investors. It’s totally on the table in China, North Korea and Iran where it’s government footing the bills.

      1. “Nonsense. It’s off the table in America because it’s too risky for private investors.”

        No.

        It is off the table because of the regulatory hurdles.

        Upfront cost and time sink is WAY too high.

        1. You prefer the regulatory hurdles that the North Koreans face.

          “Upfront cost and time sink is WAY too high.”

          You’d be surprised at what hunger can do to motivate a slack and lazy work force.

    3. “(Hint, current battery technology is incredibly polluting)”

      And the huge increase in battery efficiency is like fusion; five years in the future and always will be.

      1. Not efficiency, capacity. Batteries are too heavy and massive to be practical for many applications, like airplanes.

  11. Shit, why don’t we let kids rule?

    Ice cream for every meal yeah!

    1. Chocolate milk in the drinking fountains!

      1. Awwwww, but the water and crack combination is so popular.

  12. These globalist climate change initiatives are nothing more than general schemes to siphon money from the first world to the third world, using banks like Goldman Sachs as intermediaries, coupled with carbon credit scam orgs like We Don’t Have Time.

    There’s no way any “global climate change initiative” is going to work when the two biggest polluters on the planet, with roughly 3/7 of the world’s population, will simply laugh and keep polluting.

    1. And yeah, it’s not surprising that they’re using teenagers as meat shields for their agenda–these are inherently exploitative people.

    2. It’s not even trying to embezzle money from the first to third world.
      It’s a scheme to embezzle money from national private (especially middle class) hands to the globalist public caste of would-be world rulers.
      Sure, there are some 3rd world warlords that’ll be paid off, but the money will be consumed and controlled primarily by the “lords and ladies” of that globalist caste.

    3. It’s cute that Shikha believes these people actually care about climate change.

  13. “The most promising alternative on the horizon so far isn’t renewables, but nuclear. ”

    Not really sure this statement is correct. I think that nuclear power could be and will be part of the energy solution. To suggest it will beat out direct solar and indirect solar methods of energy generation seems unlikely. A more pressing problem that how energy is generated is the distribution of that energy. I see a lot of NIMBY opposition to energy transmission lines. That opposition will need to overcome to move the energy no matter how it is generated.

    1. 1/2 the time I think solar is a really bad idea.

      1. If you really do want to control the climate, solar and wind are terrible ideas for pretty obvious reasons.

        1. If we could find a way to harness the power of one hurricane, we’d be set for a decade. And go!

      2. “”1/2 the time I think solar is a really bad idea.””

        From dusk till dawn?

        1. that’s when needed most.

    2. Nuclear power could be ramped up far faster than solar and wind.

      First, solar and wind are intermittent and unpredictable. They can never be the sole base supply, and probably never supply more than 10% of the base.

      Second, solar and wind require toxic chemicals and a huge manufacturing capacity, not just for the initial build, but for replacements; solar panels degrade, and wind turbines have a lifespan of less than 20 years. Nuclear power plants sure aren’t simple but they take a lot less resources (time, materiel, labor) than millions of solar power plants and wind turbines.

      1. probably never supply more than 10% of the base.

        They are ALREADY supplying 14.7% of total US generation. And we rank roughly #90 out of the 140 countries that report that info. Most of the ones below us are economically dependent on keeping oil/gas/etc prices up in order to earn export $ so they obviously have incentives for fossil fuel dependency.

        We will become increasingly irrelevant re this entire issue because we are irrelevant re the technology/leadership of it. And watch out below when the rest of the world realizes that our currency – the US dollar as reserve currency – is the thing that props up fossil fuel dependency around the world. The more everyone else can transition away from those, the less important those become and the less anyone else needs to reserve dollars.

        1. 14.7%??? I’d like to see some cites on that.

          1. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

            Wind 275 6.6%

            Solar (total) 67 1.6%

            Ummm, yeah. That’s a bit short of 14.7…

            1. I was including all renewables – hydro, geotherm, biomass. From your link, it’s 17% now for the US. Still way way way behind the rest of the world despite having very good wind and solar potential that is overwhelmingly untapped in large parts of the country.

              1. The problem is no one else was including all renewables. That, and I don’t believe you. I think you thought you were quoting solar and wind, as per the discussion, and were wrong.

                But you do you. Why gain some respect by admitting an error when you could troll harder and double down.

              2. Busted lying again! Imagine my surprise!

              3. Just to give a large economy example – Germany now generates about 36% of its domestic use from renewables (overwhelmingly wind in their case) – and at least once, for a brief time, hit 100%. And compared to the US, they are quite poorly situated re both wind and solar potential.

                1. Save it. Not interested in anything you post. Get back to me when you aren’t intentionally misrepresenting data and the pretending you’re not.

                  1. I really don’t give a shit what you think I meant. The main point in my first comment was that the US is a complete laggard in all of this and it’s gonna bite us in the butt. You want to argue that we are even more backwards cuz you want exclude even some renewables? Hell what can I say. Stupid will stupid.

                    I’m ok with nuclear as electricity. But that is NOT what you useful idiots for a nuclear future are actually arguing for. You want to argue for the WORLD going to nuclear by undermining renewables. So the US can maintain our dominance as the one country that decides whether 1940 Japan gets oil or whether 2020 Iran can sell oil or get uranium. A 1950’s vision for the world with us on top as top cop.

                    Renewables render US POWER irrelevant. Can’t embargo sun, wind, water flowing downhill, biomass, geothermal. That is probably part of the reason why those who advocate for renewables advocate for that. Why other countries are quickly moving towards those alternatives. Why we are resisting and lagging. Them solving ‘climate’ also weakens us.

                    The desire to perpetuate US power – not electricity – is why those who feed you your lines want to use you to undermine renewables in favor of nuclear. And you can always tell a useful idiot. Just can’t tell them much.

                    1. “”Renewables render US POWER irrelevant. Can’t embargo sun, wind, water flowing downhill, biomass, geothermal.””

                      HA!!! really?
                      You could embargo all the materials required to make windmills, solar panel, turbines, ect.

                      “”The main point in my first comment was that the US is a complete laggard in all of this “”

                      We are not lagging in reducing our CO2 output.

                    2. JFree
                      September.30.2019 at 3:18 pm
                      “I really don’t give a shit what you think I meant….”

                      And it’s obvious you don’t give a shit regarding the truthfulness of what you post, you fucking liar.

                    3. From your link:
                      “…But the country’s progress in emissions reductions stagnated for the third year in a row, likely putting its self-imposed 2020 climate targets out of reach.
                      At around 6:00 am on 1 January, a combination of strong winds and low demand after New Year’s Eve celebrations meant that wind power alone produced about 85 percent of Germany’s power consumption, according to data provided by the Federal Network Agency. Hydropower and biomass installations covered the rest, as there was no solar power generation before sunrise.”

                      Pick them cherries, you pathetic piece of shit.

                    4. I really don’t give a shit what you think I meant.

                      Sure. I know I write giant screeds to people whose opinion I don’t care about too.

                      I think you’re a liar. Talking to me is a waste of your time. So go ahead and stop. Since you don’t care I mean.

                    5. You could embargo all the materials required to make windmills, solar panel, turbines, ect.

                      The US can’t. Realistically nor can anyone else. And even if they could, said embargo would be ineffective – affecting only marginal capacity expansion NOT existing usage/generation.

                      We are not lagging in reducing our CO2 output.

                      Nor are we really DOING anything intentional worthy of note. The only two sources of reduction are industry (steady decline since 1990) and electricity gen (since 2007). Industry cuz we moved the source of CO2 emission from the US to China/etc and we just import ‘final product’. And electricity cuz of the one-time switch from coal to gas (which was solely a price decision – though heavily influenced by subsidized debt to gas drillers). Guess what happens when say a Prez orders coal subsidies back on cuz coal miners get sick of being told ‘learn to code’. There is no ‘lower carbon hydrocarbon source’ out there awaiting technological innovation.

                    6. “The US can’t.”

                      Citation needed.

                      “And even if they could, said embargo would be ineffective – affecting only marginal capacity expansion NOT existing usage/generation”

                      Because nothing ever needs replacing. You’re not only a liar, but a dead to rights idiot too.

                    7. Nor are we really DOING anything intentional worthy of note.

                      Why do you frame only centralized government activity “intentional?” Seems a very Tony-level take – ‘only government action counts, so even though the US leads the world in reducing carbon emissions, it doesn’t count because it was only voluntary individual decisions that did it instead of government action. Why can’t we do something?’

                    8. Why do you frame only centralized government activity “intentional?”

                      I don’t. We have no significant companies beyond GE and Tesla supplying the direct technology of that transition. Virtually all the software/accounting/ops consultants that help companies understand the impact of and make changes to their internal operations re that – are European cuz that’s where the demand is. The ISO14000 type jobs here in the US are relatively low paid (compliance/paperwork types). In companies that are serious, they have to be higher paid cuz they have to work with VP level on reorging ops. The private ‘certification’ or ranking type entities (I hear that’s the libertarian alternative to regulation) that would confirm that companies are actually doing something beyond greenwashing – again mostly European. In the rankings I’ve seen of global companies that ‘do it well’ what is notable is the absence of US companies – McCormick, JnJ, Cisco, Ecolab seem to pop up a lot and that’s it.

                      It’s possible that we Americans are simply too humble to toot our own horns re all the innovation we do and we are thus completely ignoring the profit opportunities available to being brands that are both known and honest re this stuff. More likely, we are simply increasingly irrelevant.

                    9. So, not wanting globalists to seize control of our economy and energy grid is equivalent to “A 1950’s vision of the world with us on top as top cop.”? OMG, Soros really is everywhere!!

                    10. not wanting globalists to seize control of our economy and energy grid is equivalent to “A 1950’s vision of the world with us on top as top cop.

                      Renewables cannot be used to seize control of someone else. Period. We are the ones who currently have that power so we are the ones who will lose our ability to do what we’ve been doing. But us losing that power does not mean that power then goes to someone else. Everyone on Earth has ‘access’ to sunshine (and the sun is basically the source of all energy) and can use it, no one can monopolize it. No monopoly – no control of others access – no power deriving from that control. At least not at a global level.

                      Renewables are the most fundamentally libertarian change that will occur in the 21st century. If that doesn’t happen, it will be because libertarians can’t see squat in the real world.

                    11. Because nothing ever needs replacing

                      It’s the difference between embargoing cars v oil. We’ve had an embargo on Cuba for 60 years. They’ve figured out how to keep cars going and going and going. Success is not just around the corner. We had an oil embargo against us in 1973 for 5 months. Brought the US/Europe to a standstill and changed both permanently (in different directions). Duckduckgo images of those.

        2. They are ALREADY supplying 14.7% of total US generation.

          This is a flat out lie you disingenuous shit heel. All renewables together might total 14.7% but that includes heaping helpings of hydroelectric and biomass energy. The two energies named, solar and wind, make up less than 8%.

          You’re either a liar or too stupid to read and comprehend what is written. Your choice.

          1. He went with “too stupid to read and comprehend what is written.”

        3. There are two possibilities for that fact that would be true, but neither means what you think it means.

          Either Solar and wind are ~14.7% of nameplate capacity. They actually provide 1-2% of total power generated. Bit of a difference there. That’s the exact problem we are talking about. They have a lot of power, but are inconsistent. This leads to power surges during high times and complete shutdowns in other weather. There isn’t enough lithium in the world to create sufficient batteries to event that out.

          Or perhaps the 14.7% is “total renewables” including hydro and “biomass”, aka burning wood and crops. Hydro is close to its maximum capacity already, so that’s not expandable, and I like trees, so expanding biomass is not on my to-do list.

          Without seeing the original, I cannot tell which it is, but either way, JFree is still wrong.

          1. Using biomass for fuel is a net CO2 producer. It takes more energy to produce the energy equivalent fuel from biomass (ethanol, biodiesel, renewable diesel) than it does from oil or coal.

            The only reason people like biomass is because the emissions from these fuels are NOT COUNTED in the balance. Some CO2 is cleaner than other CO2 apparently. You don’t hear about that in the mainstream media, of course.

            Really, the only process that removes CO2 is the uptake of CO2 by plants. If you count the CO2 uptake by an acre of corn, it is the same whether it is converted to ethanol or not. My solution is to grow the fastest growing plants one can (some algae, but the separation is costly) and chuck that shit down into old coal mines.

            1. Remember when Hemp was suppose to be the answer to plastics are assorted other stuff? Now’s the time to put that to the test.

          2. They have a lot of power, but are inconsistent

            Actually they (in particular wind) are mostly ‘inconsistent’ because those are the sources that in a centralized grid are the ones that get intentionally shut down or taken offline first when the system is already producing all the power needed. That is a MANAGEMENT issue – not an energy source issue. Wind itself is quite consistent (though seasonal) but it will never be dispatchable (ie can’t order the wind to blow harder or softer).

            Course management issues can be solved in those countries that want to solve it by things like change from centralized to distributed/etc grids. Or, in the case of the US, management issues will be used as the excuse why we’ll never be able to do anything and like all incompetence will be blamed on something else (like the wind itself).

            1. those are the sources that in a centralized grid are the ones that get intentionally shut down or taken offline first when the system is already producing all the power needed

              Do you know why?

              1. Because if they take nuclear offline, it takes months to ramp back up. If they take the fuel-based (oil/coal/gas) offline, they run into big logistics problems re that fuel.

                Those are not problems of WIND.

            2. No. A study done a couple of years ago evaluated the availability of wind power in the US. About 13% of the time there would be NO WIND POWER WHATSOEVER AVAILABLE in the entire USA.

  14. How dare you attack from the low ground a child who is innocently speaking the kind of truth only a pure heart could see?

  15. “The World Needs Innovators, Not Lectures From Teens, to Solve Climate Change”

    Stop lecturing me.

  16. >>Climate change activists are confronting the same problem—and the more they exaggerate the sacrifices required, the more they’ll exacerbate it.

    at the very least, thank you for shutting Greta up from the inside.

  17. I used to wonder if it’s by design that every climate activist insists the only possible solution is the biggest public works boondoggle of all time, but it’s easier to believe they’re just witless (and in both senses of the word), because they invariably seem to think they can have Medicare-for-All, too!

    And a lot of those folks are spreading their angst on low-power mobile devices, oblivious to the market forces that brought us here from the time of 500 watt desktop computers with CRT monitors!

    1. If the laissez-faire market could solve such problems, wouldn’t it have started by now?

                    1. Professor Amateur, these are all boondoggles, in case you didn’t know.

                    2. Probably, not really the point.

              1. They even have a cronyist organization!!!

                As is normal in our free-wheeling, laissez-faire market!

      1. “If the laissez-faire market could solve such problems, wouldn’t it have started by now?”

        Oh, look!:
        “Study: U.S. Leads World In Reducing CO2 Emissions, While Paris Accord Nations Break Promises”
        […]
        “…Declines were led by the US (-0.5%). This is the ninth time in this century that the US has had the largest decline in emissions in the world. This also was the third consecutive year that emissions in the US declined, though the fall was the smallest over the last three years.
        Carbon emissions from energy use from the US are the lowest since 1992, the year that the UNFCCC came into existence. The next largest decline was in Ukraine (-10.1%)…”
        https://www.dailywire.com/news/study-us-leads-world-reducing-co2-emissions-while-james-barrett

      2. Yes if it existed. Energy production is highly regulated and subsidized.

      3. The biggest thing the laissez-faire market has done to solve all the problems in the world is to make many more people well-off enough that they can afford to give a shit. Literally – if you’ve got enough food to have regular bowel movements, you can move on to clothing and shelter and other basic needs and eventually you can afford luxuries like clean air and water and time spent worrying about inconsequential things like plastic straws and red hats and preferred pronouns.

        1. You don’t have to assign moral virtue to anything to realize that industrialization is the proximate cause of the problem. Nobody wants to de-industrialize, but sane people want to move to the next stage of industrialization where we don’t ruin the habitable environment of planet earth.

          Use governments. Use capitalism. Just like we’ve always done. What are you doing to help the cause? Clinging to fucktarded magical market nonsense so tightly that you’d rather see the world burn than proved wrong that government just can’t do anything right?

          1. “but sane people want to move to the next stage of industrialization where we don’t ruin the habitable environment of planet earth.”

            And your solution is to alter the albedo.

            Let that sink in.

            1. Actually, painting every roof in the world white was suggested. Sorry, I don’t have a link.

            2. It’s so cute when you people learn a vocab word.

      4. *looks around for laissez-faire market in vain*

        1. That’s a fun tactic, but it the lack of an actual free market does not stop people from arguing against free market solutions, so it isn’t going to stop anyone else either.

          Now that you’re done with your corollary to the no true Scotsman fallacy can we continue discussing this or you going to keep doing this?

        2. Free market solutions to the energy need are abundant:

          Oil, natural gas, coal, hydroelectric

          All others need subsidies.

      5. With adequate demand. Since AGW is fake, and since oil, gas, and coal are effective sources with poorly-documented long-term effects, the market has not needed to change the dynamic. Dreaming about fusion, non-existent perpetual wind machines, or higher-efficiency solar panels does not create economic pressure, and neither does repression or excessive taxation. Necessity only.

    2. they invariably seem to think they can have Medicare-for-All, too!

      Oh, they can. It’s possible. They would just absolutely hate it when they got it, though.

  18. “When a reporter asked Greta what her economic plan for solving climate change was Greta curled up in a fetal position on the floor and rocked back and forth for 20 minutes. Security promptly ejected the reporter from the premises.”

  19. Arctic ice may melt in summers

    NORTHWEST PASSAGE!
    Which would reduce carbon, and more importantly by far, particulate emissions from freighters.

  20. Wealth = carbon footprint

    Why don’t these kiddies attack the global elite?

    Oops, that’s mommy and daddy?

    1. Apparently the six member yacht (!) crew who ferried her across the Atlantic flew back to Europe on a plane, outweighing the two round trips it would have taken to fly her and her father over. Oops.

      1. Don’t forget all the indirect emissions from the crew and boat, including rations, fuel for electronics, building costs, etc. Her luxury sailing cruise across the atlantic expended as much or more than chartering a personal airplane. If she actually cared about the environment instead of just looking good, she would have flown commercial.

        1. “”fuel for electronics”‘

          Feel free to throw in the environmental impact of mining those materials that make up those components.

        2. And a percentage of the carbon footprints of all the employees whose contribution to society are the products of daddy’s plastic straw factories.

        3. Yeah but airplanes are sooooo boring.

  21. A mostly reasonably-positioned article from Shikha, excellent. Looking forward to more of the same.

    Also, that poor girl. Visibly uncomfortable reading her lines while her ANTIFA-supporting parents chewed their nails and then dejected when Trump just walked by her. Her ignominy will last longer than the charge in that Tesla Schwarzenegger lent her.

  22. Cersei was right they didn’t need her. The Night King was easily defeated by one young woman.

    Why does it have to be renewables. A 100% carbon free form of energy has existed for 70 years it’s called nuclear power. The fact you and your alarmist friends refuse to embrace it proves you’re not serious.

  23. Notice none of the climate change activists are lobbying for innovation in ways to REMOVE CO2 from the atmosphere. Why? Because then we’d be able to live whatever kind of lifestyle they don’t approve of and keep our money but still save the planet from the angry sun monster.

    1. Yes. I have to believe, like the movies Armageddon and Deep Impact, if anyone really believed in this, we’d have ozone generators plugging the hole at the South Pole and technical solutions for sucking Co2 out of the atmosphere. We have a few smart people out there.

      1. ozone generators plugging the hole at the South Pole

        That’s not how it works. Ozone (O3) is made from O2 and there’s plenty of that around to make ozone. All you’d be doing by pumping ozone into the stratosphere above Antarctica is temporarily disturbing the equilibrium that’s in place due to the conditions there. The equilibrium will re-establish itself once you stop injecting the ozone. So unless you want to continuously pump ozone into the stratosphere over Antarctica indefinitely, it would be pointless. Not even sure how you’d get it up there. Balloons with 5 mile long hoses?

    2. Yes they are. But whatever you need to tell yourself in order to justify your support of doing fuck-all about the problem.

      1. Obama bought a mansion on Martha’s Vineyard.

        At some point, you people need to get that you’re being used.

        1. Definite nominee for ironic comment of the year. The whole fucking year.

          The Obamas bought a house in Martha’s Vinyard, thus climate change is probably a hoax.

          I’m being used. Yeah, uh huh.

          1. The Obamas bought a house in Martha’s Vinyard, thus climate change is probably a hoax.

            thus, the Obamas don’t give a shit about their “carbon footprint,” only yours.

          2. Feel free to offer a better explanation. I notice you didn’t.

            1. My parents have a goddamn beach house and believe in climate change too. What fucking bearing does it have on whether climate science is real?

              There’s only so much I can do to respond to such vast stupidity. And the fact that you didn’t even come up with it yourself… pathetic.

      2. Hey I’m all for running the world on nuclear power. What’s that…the alarmists don’t like nuclear power? Well then go fuck yourself.

      3. How do you know what I’m doing you mendacious shitbag?

      4. And what are YOU doing exactly? Besides calling people names on the internet you brave climate crusader?

        1. He’s attacking people for discussing his 16 year old messiah.

    3. The reason for that it is makes everything else look economical and practical. You can do it, but at 300 ppm, you need a lot of air, and scrubbing out a meaningful amount is extremely difficult. Then, there is the question of what to do with it. Industrial scale CO2 is just not very useful, and injection wells are exceptionally inefficient and quite likely leak. It is done on some exhaust stacks, where the 10% CO2 concentration makes step 1 much easier. However, even then, it’s ludicrously expensive and impractical.

    4. Rhombus, read Professor Amateur’s several comments above about CO2 sequestration research.

      But it’s pretty hard to match a free solution that can remove CO2 that is diluted to 400 ppm….plants.

  24. The world need science deniers to shut the fuck up while the adults try to solve the problem they claim doesn’t exist because they are morons.

    And the reason a 16 year-old is the target of right-wing hysteria right now is because the right wing likes easy targets. They obviously can’t engage the actual scientists, because, again, they are morons.

    1. And the reason a 16 year-old is the target of right-wing hysteria right now is because the right wing likes easy targets.

      Yeah – the “right wing” was just wandering around looking for a 16-year-old to persecute, and finally turned up Greta, who totally wasn’t thrust into the public eye by a political movement looking to hide behind an unassailable youngster.

      They obviously can’t engage the actual scientists, because . . .

      No actual scientists seem to be willing to stand up and speak for this crap, so we needed a handicapped sixteen-year-old we could scream at people for “attacking.”

      1. In fact it seems like you guys spend almost a majority of your time going after children and college students and whatever their antics are du jour. It’s almost like you aren’t even trying anymore.

        Actual scientists, for the record, are setting their hair on fire in panic over political inaction. The threat you guys see in this little girl is that she’s articulate. Doesn’t make it any less pathetic that you’ve made her a scapegoat of… whatever, while you say absolutely nothing to fat, elderly cunts who outright deny scientific reality and spread that evil nonsense on a constant basis.

        1. “In fact it seems like you guys spend almost a majority of your time going after children and college students and whatever their antics are du jour. It’s almost like you aren’t even trying anymore.”

          It’s almost like you’re blaming other people for the thought leaders you choose.

        2. you guys spend almost a majority of your time going after children and college students

          If you can find some other advocates for your views, feel free.

          Actual scientists, for the record, are setting their hair on fire in panic over political inaction.

          Point me to them, and stop it with the “Listen to the Children!” bullshit.

          And when I say “point me to them,” I mean “point me to them,” not “tell me to read Wikipedia.”

          No one made Greta a scapegoat other than her parents and your chosen political party.

          1. I’m trying to tell you that you exhibit signs of mental illness by your sheeplike repetition of right-wing horseshit and defending a fixation on one child’s one speech.

            The right-wing’s sick fascination with one little girl’s one speech is only evidence of her effectiveness. They love to destroy all that is good in the world. Which, I hasten to add, is not normal behavior.

            1. Is she effective or is she an easy target? And laughing at someone is not necessarily a fascination with that person.

            2. I’m trying to tell you that you exhibit signs of mental illness by your sheeplike repetition of right-wing horseshit and defending a fixation on one child’s one speech.

              So, in other words, no scientists.

              But you’ll stand behind a 16-year-old girl and scream “WHY ARE YOU OBSESSING OVER THIS 16-YEAR-OLD GIRL I’M STANDING BEHIND?!?”

              I didn’t choose Greta to be the spokesperson for climate change hysteria.

              If you have a better candidate for spokesperson we should be focusing on, please let us know.

              You’ve been asked multiple times now and just continue to shriek about how everyone is paying attention to Greta because we’re being told by the mass media on a daily basis that only evil heartless bastards would not be paying attention to Greta.

              Now you’re pissed off that we’re paying attention to Greta.

              I do wish you would make up your mind.

              And I also wish you could refer to some science. Or at least a scientist who can support your claims.

              But you can’t. Hence, 16-year-old girl + “How dare you criticize the 16-year-old girl!!”

        3. Hey, who are you calling fat and elderly?

    2. Sadly, you live in a world full of people that are smarter than you, so there’s little chance they’ll shut up and give you everything you want as thight we are your aggrieved parents.

      “And the reason a 16 year-old is the target”

      Is because her parents and supporters are vile, and they like Motte and Bailey tactics.

    3. “”The world need science deniers to shut the fuck up “”

      Science doesn’t require anyone to shut the fuck up. It actually encourages questioning all premises.

      Lean what the scientific method is.

      Flat earthers are just people who think the science is settled.

      1. Sometimes science gets settled enough.

        But 100% of the time, libertarians take what they learned during their first day of science class (or econ class) and assume that’s all there is to know.

        1. “Sometimes science gets settled enough.”

          Absolutely irrefutably wrong.

          You don’t understand science.

          1. Sometimes science gets settled enough… to motivate action.

            Otherwise, what the fuck are we doing here?

            Do you find something wrong with that statement?

            1. Lots, but you have a 16 year old messiah, so I’d be wasting my time explaining it to you again.

        2. Even when science is “settled enough”, challenges to those principles are still fair game. And if they are true, the outcome of the challenge will remain the same.

          There is no science settled enough that it is beyond being questioned. Science welcomes challenging the status quo.

          When people say the science is settled, they are trying to shutdown challenges to the premises. That are not supporting science. They are just trying to deny what science does.

          1. There is no credible challenge to the science under discussion. You’re a creationist still trying to get a seat at the evolution table. You don’t deserve one because you are stupid. The end. You lost. Because you’re stupid.

            1. I know you are not well-read or aware of this topic generally, but I thought you might have heard of the Oregon Petition Project. Over 30,000 scientists signed to reject the Kyoto Protocols and the underlying claims of global warming.
              http://www.oism.org/pproject/

              Me Too!

              1. Those damn science-denying scientists! At it again!!

              2. Oh, is that the one with all the community college engineers and janitors from like 1997? And what great web design.

            2. “There is no credible challenge to the science under discussion.”

              Please define ‘the science under discussion’. I’m pretty sure you mean ‘*your* preferred solution to what *you* see as a problem, omitting science entirely.

        3. “”But 100% of the time, libertarians take what they learned during their first day of science class (or econ class) and assume that’s all there is to know.””

          Bullshit. You can’t prove it because it’s not true.

          If you don’t want to be called stupid, don’t post crap like that.

        4. Sometimes science gets settled enough.

          No it doesn’t. Name one scientific theory you consider settled and I’ll show you what a scientific ignoramus you are.

          And your ‘proof’ that climate science is ‘settled enough’ is an article asserting that there is no controversy on climate change because those who don’t believe the Party Line on climate change don’t count (CS vs CC – “Climate Scientist vs. Climate Contrarian”).

          Oddly enough, the largest membership in the CC group is meteorologists.

          The peer review responses to that article pointed out that declaring that there is no controversy about something is not science, to which the article’s authors responded “nuh uh, Denier.”

          1. “”Oddly enough, the largest membership in the CC group is meteorologists. “‘

            I think geologists are also in the CC group. No?

            I think the most members of the CS group are politicians.

          2. Meteorology? Isn’t that like the comm. major of science?

            Some settled science. Hmm. Understand that when I say settled, I mean settled with a high enough certainty to motivate any necessary actions. You’re playing kindergarten word games like you always fucking do and it’s just more desperate bullshit. Derp. No theory is ever 100% proven for eternity. Derpy derp. Haha I win on semantics! Don’t be Sevo.

            Anyway, we know a lot of shit about a lot of stuff in physics, chemistry, biology, what have you. What, do you go around worrying you’re going to randomly fall upward one day? Or that maybe the Sumerian creation myth might turn out to have more evidence to support it than natural selection?

            What are you even fucking talking about?

            1. “Anyway, we know a lot of shit about a lot of stuff in physics, chemistry, biology, what have you”

              His super sciency examples.

            2. Meteorology? Isn’t that like the comm. major of science?

              No – that would be ‘Climate Science.’ It used to be called “Earth Science,” and was practically a Humanities elective.

              No theory is ever 100% proven for eternity.

              Mmmkay. Why don’t you pony up with a theory that you believe has the level of consensus you’re talking about, and reveal what your source is for believing this consensus exists.

              And just to cut to the chase, I mean an actual source, not “go poke around Wikipedia.”

              we know a lot of shit about a lot of stuff in physics, chemistry, biology, what have you

              Who’s this “we?” You’ve never demonstrated any such knowledge.

              What, do you go around worrying you’re going to randomly fall upward one day?

              Interesting choice of example.

              You probably think gravity is ‘settled science.’

              Or that maybe the Sumerian creation myth might turn out to have more evidence to support it than natural selection?

              I’m sure you understand neither thing.

              1. Gravity is one of the more unsettled sciences out there. Way, way less settled than climate change. Let’s be clear. There are still uncertainties in the study of a global phenomenon. But you’re rejecting basic thermodynamics we’ve understood for more than 100 years.

                And you’re doing it because you prefer politicians and their TV and internet propagandists pissing in your ear instead of thinking or reading credible sources.

                You can’t possibly think you’re going to win this. Not if you have any awareness of the world.

        5. Science is settled but you can’t explain why the earth heated up so much from 1910-1940? Spare us.

          1. You can’t prove a single fucking aspect of the economics bullshit you believe. Thus, you’re logically wrong about everything even more than I am. By your logic.

            1. That was neither logic nor science. It was a tantrum little guy.

              No wonder you identify so much with Greta.

    4. All she is to you and your side, Tony, is a meat shield to avoid any rational scrutiny of what you propose.

      1. I assume you think I propose to destroy the global economy on a boutique totalitarian experiment or something?

        1. That pretty much explains the GND. Which I think I remember you are not for.

          But what is the purpose of using a 16 year old girl? She didn’t say anything we haven’t heard before. Except perhaps the claim that it stole her childhood. That’s a questionable claim that deserves scrutiny.

          1. What’s the purpose of being a cunt about her? She’s just a 16 year old girl.

            Did she strike a nerve or something? Are you worried that she did?

            1. She’s just a 16 year old girl.

              That’s exactly the point.

              Why do you keep pretending that the right wing media chose to focus on Greta with no prompting whatsoever?

              You’re either being stupid or dishonest. There really is no third choice.

              1. Because they are evil cunts who like to pick on children.

                Fuck, they attacked high school students whose friends were massacred in school, all for cynical political and money-grubbing motivations. This is hardly new.

                The question is why do you side with those cunts?

    5. The reason a 16 year-old is the target is because the 16 year-old put herself in the public eye. You don’t get to protest and make hyperbolic statements and not be challenged.

      1. And I get to call you and the rest of the butt-sniffing FOX News set pathetic assholes for spending all your time making kids and college students out to be the biggest threat to civilization.

        1. And they get to point out that those kids you think so little of are the people you’re putting up as thought leaders.

        2. No, they’re just gullible and easily manipulated by grievance narratives, always have been, always will be.

          But you know that.

          1. easily manipulated by grievance narratives

            MAGA!

        3. Why do you keep pretending that the right wing media chose to focus on Greta with no prompting whatsoever?

          You’re either being stupid or dishonest. There really is no third choice.

          1. Because I watch it and read it, and it’s all you idiots ever parrot. The fascinating part is how you think you come to your own thoughts on things.

            1. You watched and read the right wing promote Greta? And you didn’t notice the left wing promoting Greta?

              When did the right wing get focused on Greta? Before or after the internationally televised speeches?

              1. Because she had a point.

                1. “Because she had a point.”

                  Her “point” is simple;
                  she’s a spoiled brat indoctrinated in the scare du jure.

    6. Hmmm. If you go on international television and address world leaders, you are thrusting yourself into the limelight. The majority of conservatives are trying to dismiss the child as irrelevant while going back to actual points of discussion. It is the left that is trying to push her forward.

      1. Conservatives in America are trying to quash any and all progress to deal with the most important problem in the world. I suppose they’d prefer Al Gore or some other geezer to scapegoat for their own intellectual inadequacy, but children are always a good target, at least in their own fucked up minds.

        1. “Nobody ever died for lack of a cake. Laws about non-bigot-driven access to emergency rooms, OK then. Hotels & restaurants, essential for travelling, OK then”

          All the links to C02 sequesting businesses that I posted seem to indicate you’re mistaken.

        2. children are always a good target

          lol

          Why do you keep pretending that the right wing media chose to focus on Greta with no prompting whatsoever?

          You’re either being stupid or dishonest. There really is no third choice.

          1. children are always a good target for Tony

        3. No they aren’t conservatives are 100% behind nuclear power the easiest most practical solution.

          1. You’ve only been shilling for this for like 20 years.

            It’s still impossible to make a profit in a free market, so you should be against it, but I’m all for it. Whatever satisfies the rightwing cunts as long as it gets the job done, that’s what I say.

            1. What free market? You keep blaming something that doesn’t exist.

            2. I’m all for it

              Maybe you should be trying to persuade your Party to stop rejecting it, instead of coming here and screaming at us for not listening to a 16-year-old.

              1. My party doesn’t reject it.

                You keep saying they do because you are part of an evil propaganda effort to change the subject and deflect and delay at every opportunity so that oil monopolies can keep extracting dollars from the planet you live on.

                What a worthwhile life you’ve chosen for yourself.

                1. Tony
                  October.1.2019 at 12:31 pm
                  “My party doesn’t reject it….”

                  Shitbag here proves he either doesn’t know what it is or what the D party stands for.
                  Or both.

        4. No. AGW is failing as a political concept in the US. Shipping the girl over here was a last desperate effort to re-validate AGW on emotional grounds. Did she offer anything else? Any new evidence? Any new sources of energy? She was useless to the debate except to stifle it.

          1. “…She was useless to the debate except to stifle it…”

            She was exactly as valuable to the debate as marching school kids around during the teachers’ negotiations for higher pay; a cute little thing reading the lines they gave her.

        5. “Conservatives in America are trying to quash any and all progress to deal with the most important problem in the world.”

          Wild lefty claims do not qualify as argument, especially when the are advanced absent one bit of evidence and by a person who posts lies at least 90% of the time.
          The most important problem in the world is fucking lefty ignoramuses pushing some scare du jure.

    7. “The world need science deniers to shut the fuck up while the adults try to solve the problem they claim doesn’t exist because they are morons.”

      I think shitbag here is offering to STFU and get lost.

    8. You need people who disagree with you to “shut the fuck up”, and have much more of their money taken by a bloated government while changing everything about the way they live. And don’t forget the “shut the fuck up” part.

      You sound reasonable tony.

    9. Haha. It is the left that loves them easy targets. That’s why they feed nonsense to children. And want 16 year olds to be able to vote. And want as many illiterate, poverty stricken third world dependents crossing the border as possible. Easy targets.

    10. More than 500 scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have sent a “European Climate Declaration” to the Secretary-General of the United Nations asking for a long-overdue, high-level, open debate on climate change. “There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent,” they declared. “However, CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly. For instance, wind turbines kill birds and bats, and palm-oil plantations destroy the biodiversity of the rainforests.” The signatories of the declaration also insist that public policy must respect scientific and economic realities and not just reflect the most fashionable frenzy of the day.

      https://principia-scientific.org/500-scientists-to-un-there-is-no-climate-emergency/

      1. Those aren’t Scientists, they are Contrarians. Therefore, they don’t count.

        Don’t you even Science, brah?

      2. “More than 500 scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have sent a “European Climate Declaration” to the Secretary-General of the United Nations asking for a long-overdue, high-level, open debate on climate change…”

        That is going exactly nowhere; the politics will not allow that sort of honest debate.

  25. Rather than lecturing world leaders, they’d help more if they stayed in class, listened, and learned in order to become future innovators.

    Help ‘who’ more? The last way they will ever ‘learn to innovate’ in any way that fundamentally challenges the way we live is by staying in school and STFU. Not that that means the only alternative for them (or worse everyone else) is for them to wander the world yelling at adults and throwing tantrums.

    What they need to do is drop out. Reject all the stuff they themselves see as our shit and our baggage and our stupidity. And create their own world that works better to achieve their goals. And then take over the rest of it. And not in some individual way but as an entire generation of peers.

    Time and energy is on their side and they have to leverage that as a generational strength. Not let themselves be fearmongered out of that by believing that it’s too late. Nor to be hoodwinked out of that by listening to people who want them to sit down and STFU and waste their time doing nothing important.

    1. “they’d help more if they stayed in class, listened, and learned”

      “The last way they will ever ‘learn to innovate’ in any way that fundamentally challenges the way we live is by staying in school and STFU”

      You murdered that strawman.

  26. The temperature difference between Hudson County, NJ and Sussex County NJ is about the same as the rise in temperature expected by these climate models.

  27. As noted in Reason before, the people who are sure all human life, or in some cases all life on earth, will end in 10 to 15 years if SOMETHING isn’t done now (generally by the U.S. alone), are way off base. Unfortunately, if you try to point this out to them, they call you a climate change denier, even if you mention trying to ameliorate the effects of climate change.

  28. I completely agree with the sentiment that we need innovation to address problematic emissions because it’s a global problem and it won’t do us much good to reduce emissions if other countries are increasingly their emissions.

    1. So how would you address China since it’s one of the big polluters?

      1. China responds to pressure from its own citizens. That’s probably the best hope. They don’t respond well to threats and cajoling from foreign countries.

        1. China responds to pressure from its own citizens.

          The citizens of Tibet, Taiwan, parts of Malaysia, Brunei, etc. not so much.

          1. Tibetans have never been much when it comes to burning fossil fuels. The yak butter lamps used to illuminate their homes and monasteries burn yak butter. Brunei is another story. Oil and gas production is a major part of their economy.

            1. What’s the CO2 output on yak butter.

              1. “What’s the CO2 output on yak butter.”

                A small fraction of the CO2 emissions from burning fossils fuels which was something like 18 gigatonnes yearly for the planet if memory serves. I doubt the combined yak weight of the entire plateau comes close to that.

                1. Well, since we are considering categories, like fossil fuels, and not specific examples, like yaks (I guess you thought we wouldn’t notice you do that little shift?) now do ruminants.

                  1. And I’m honestly curious how much CO2 burning Yak butter emits.

                    1. “And I’m honestly curious how much CO2 burning Yak butter emits.”

                      Roughly speaking, the same amount you get from burning Woman butter.

                  2. “Well, since we are considering categories”

                    I was considering Tibet which gets most energy from the sun, without relying on fossil fuels. They do use charcoal for stoves, so they are not entirely dependent on the energy stored in the vast grasslands. I think I saw some Aberdeen Angus when I was out there, but only yaks can thrive in altitudes of 4000 meters. Yaks and grass. Leave your ruminants at home where they belong.

                    1. “I was considering Tibet”

                      “burning fossils fuels”

                      “combined yak weight”

                      It looks like you’re comparing the entirety of fossil fuels to yaks. You definitely were not considering Tibet, and your response wasn’t even coherent. It WAS however, an obvious dodge.

                    2. which gets most energy from the sun

                      No, it doesn’t. It gets most of its energy from hydro. I linked that for you the other day.

                    3. They do use charcoal for stoves

                      But at least it’s not an evil Fossil Fuel, amirite?

                    4. ” It WAS however, an obvious dodge.”

                      Obviously, the dodge is on you.

                    5. ” It gets most of its energy from hydro. ”

                      And it’s the energy of the sun we can thank for powering the water cycle. Hydro isn’t as ‘innovative’ as you seem to think.

                    6. “Obviously, the dodge is on you.”

                      You might just as well add “neener, neener, neener”, since, as always, you offered no support for yet one more of your bullshit claims

                    7. “And it’s the energy of the sun we can thank for powering the water cycle. Hydro isn’t as ‘innovative’ as you seem to think.”

                      Oh, Mr. Pedant proves what a fucking shit he is but one more time.
                      Proud of yourself?

                    8. A yak is a ruminant.

                2. Perhaps only because it is not used in quantity?

                  Doesn’t answer my question though.

                  1. Perhaps only because it is not used in quantity?

                    Yes.

                    Doesn’t answer my question though.

                    Funny, that.

                    1. But to really take into account the carbon footprint of burning yak butter, you also have to take into account the carbon footprint (including methane) of raising the yaks for their butter.

                    2. “” you also have to take into account the carbon footprint (including methane) of raising the yaks for their butter.”‘

                      True.

                      Also, Methane is more of a contributor than CO2.

            2. Tibetans have never been much when it comes to burning fossil fuels. The yak butter lamps used to illuminate their homes and monasteries burn yak butter. Brunei is another story. Oil and gas production is a major part of their economy.

              What it’s like when China consistently mismanages pollution, brutally oppresses it’s own citizens, keeping them fed on a diet of fake news through their pollution masks on a level the West can’t comprehend, and you think everyone else is talking about carbon dioxide.

              1. Are you asking me a question or trying to tell me something you’ve heard about China?

              2. And those oh, so, green Euros count wood pellets as ‘sustainable’, so they claim the advantages of that, at the same time, harvesting the trees which respire CO2, thereby adding to the atmospheric CO2 while waving that halo around:
                https://e360.yale.edu/features/carbon-loophole-why-is-wood-burning-counted-as-green-energy

                1. Whoops; in reply to trueman’s earlier ‘clever’ remarks.

            3. “Tibetans have never been much when it comes to burning fossil fuels.”

              Nor have Africans, but ‘fossil fuels’ are not the only fuels which produce CO2 on oxidation:
              Wood averages ~116 kg/MMBTU
              Coal ~120
              https://futuremetrics.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/CO2-from-Wood-and-Coal-Combustion.pdf
              Natural gas, by comparison is ` 1/2 what coal produces.

              1. “Natural gas, by comparison is ` 1/2 what coal produces.”

                Is this the best you have to offer? We’ve been wringing our hands all day over yak butter. Please help us, Sevo. Or insult us. Your call.

                1. You are a brainless piece of shit.

        2. China responds to pressure from its own citizens. That’s probably the best hope. They don’t respond well to threats and cajoling from foreign countries.

          We are seeing in Hong Kong how China responds to pressure from its own citizens. And don’t forget the million in re-education camps in Western China and thousands killed in Tiananmen Square 1989. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of disappearances that never reach our media.

          1. If you think that foreign threats and hectoring are more appropriate then hector away. I have more faith in the good sense and courage of the Chinese people.

            1. If you are going to generalize about the Chinese people, you’re generalizing about a population which has lived under one emperor or the other for ~4,200 years.
              Does not suggest a yen for ‘power to the people’…

              1. Maybe we should all join BigT and send a big collective tsk tsk out China way.

                1. You are a brainless piece of shit.

        3. “China responds to pressure from its own citizens. ”

          They respond. There is no denying that.

    2. We’ve had the solution for 70 years, nuclear power.

      1. We’ve had regulatory hurdles for 80 years. Go figure.

  29. The problem being that innovation is hard. It requires rationality, creativity and considerable elbow grease. Lecturing is easy. Especially if it comes straight from an emotional place that brooks no dissent.

    1. HOW DARE YOU ATTACK THIS PRECIOUS LITTLE GIRL. TAKE THAT BACK. APOLOGIZE!

      These are the so-called adults in the room saying such inane blathering gibberish.

      1. It’s also worth noting clowns like Silverman have compared her to Jesus and others to Joan of Arc.

        I mentioned contradictions before this represents another. The anti-Cristian, godless left loathes Christianity but here they are comparing her to a man who died on a cross for our sins and is LITERALLY the founder of Christianity and one of the most revered SAINTS in the Catholic Church in Joan of Arc.

        More weirdness? Greta is from mostly Protestant Sweden where I’m kinda sure they ain’t fans of the Pope.

        1. Godless left? There are more Christians on the political left than on the political right.

          1. A large segment of the progressive left bashes Christianity. Be in the media or pop culture.

          2. There are more Christians on the political left than on the political right.

            One thing the Rev gets right is that the conservatives are religious. Even you ought to know that.

        2. Sweden is officially Lutheran but the majority of Swedes are atheists.

    2. We already have the innovation, 4th generation nuclear reactors.

      1. “4th generation nuclear reactors”

        Let me guess. These are the ones that come with the patented ’rounded corners.’

  30. If the technology is safe then it wouldn’t need a Price Anderson Act because nuclear reactors would be able to get full insurance on the private market. Get back to me when that happens.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act

    1. Did you read your own article? The Act has never been used and isn’t dissimilar to other schemes for other energy sources (hydroelectric production assumes no liability). I don’t agree that the act should exist but to act like nuclear power only exists because of an act that’s never been used is a bit… abstract.

    2. We’re repeatedly told that we will all be killed in the coming decades by the effects of carbon emissions. And when we suggest using nuclear to ward off such catastrophe, your response is to say that we can’t embrace the most obvious and practical solution to reduce carbon emissions because it’s just too risky.

  31. China responds to pressure from its own citizens. That’s probably the best hope. They don’t respond well to threats and cajoling from foreign countries.

    1. China responds to pressure from its own citizens. That’s probably the best hope. They don’t respond well to threats and cajoling from foreign countries.

      We are seeing in Hong Kong how China responds to pressure from its own citizens. And don’t forget the million in re-education camps in Western China and thousands killed in Tiananmen Square 1989. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of disappearances that never reach our media.

  32. Takeaway from this piece:

    Great Grandma Dalmia to teens:
    Be quiet. Go to school (which means lots of debt). Once you’re in debt peonage, you’ll be focused on that.

    This argument works both way. It’s not quiet too late for Grandma Dalmia to go to engineering school (and innovate) instead of telling kids to shut up or be writing pieces like this one.

    Grandma’s “children should be seen and not heard” argument has never worked, unless you’re trying to encourage them to speak more.

  33. It’s been a long-time since a sane Dalmia article. I’m just glad she didn’t blame Trump for Greta.

    I think it’s time for a push back against climate change fanatics. What they propose promises less for a clean environment and more mass starvation and hysteria.

    Anyway, there’s a little crinkle. Innovators come from a capitalist and free market economic and social system. It requires capital, dedication and R&D only capitalism can offer.

    And according to the climate dogma, capitalism IS the problem and must be usurped. Hence we sometimes see ‘Not Climate Change. System Change’ signs held up at these marches.

    The other contradiction is the left sees humans as the source of all our ills and advocate for some form of population control. Yet, while they expect the West to have less children, they push for more ‘open borders’ (as Reason seems to agree with) because we need more immigrants (remember no one is an ‘illegal alien’ and now you’ll be fined if you say as much in NYC) to replace our low birth rates because….here they can’t tell us why except they want to replace the white population. It sure as hell isn’t about economic growth because growth is also seen as problematic and Grrrrettta said as much in her little petulant tirade there.

    The head spins. Spins harder that we actually LISTEN to all this anti-science (the base of the banning plastic straws was a kid’s science project riddled with obvious empirical errors) nonsense being pimped.

    1. “Innovators come from a capitalist and free market economic and social system.”

      Innovation in nuclear technology has been reliant on heavy government involvement since the 1940s. We see this in USA, Canada, France, UK, USSR, India, Japan, China and Germany.

      1. Because the regulations require it.

        1. Because there’s not enough secrecy in development of nuclear technology.

          1. Could you please try to stay on point?

            1. That is the point. Don’t let anyone else tell you otherwise.

              1. Oh OK we’ll just take your word for it having been wrong about everything else.

                  1. “Butter yet, think for yourself.”

                    Much better: quit posting bullshit only your mom thinks is ‘clever’.

                  2. You blew it. SB “…think for yakself”.

        2. Okay, how about we build an unregulated nuclear power plant in your back yard.

    2. Anyway, there’s a little crinkle. Innovators come from a capitalist and free market economic and social system. It requires capital, dedication and R&D only capitalism can offer.

      Only people who grew up without indoor plumbing can lead us to our carbon neutral future. If it weren’t for all the gangs recruiting child soldiers, these immigrant kids would’ve already solved the problems Western society will face 100 yrs. down the road.

  34. Remember when David Hogg was going to be the savior for the gun control crowd?

    Greta will get her 15 mins of fame, but probably not much beyond that.

    1. Will she be whoring on Stockholm streets next year?

  35. Shikha bases policy of what she learned on game of thrones. Sounds right.

  36. Stupid reason writer and stupid kid.

    1. Says the guy who’s day consists of trolling a website from his mom’s basement.

      1. Says the troll who goes on his Moms basement porn website.

  37. Love the article, but what’s up with the clickbait Greta tie-in? Weak.

    1. Right? Greta was last week. Everyone else has moved on.

  38. Perfect title.
    Well stated.

    1. Maybe you’d have better comments if you spent less time changing names SQRLSY.

  39. What will the cost for this be???? YOU are a monster for even asking the question! For your punishment, I am going to have Greta screech at you for 10 minutes.

  40. “Finger-wagging won’t overcome the collective action problems preventing action.”

    Such nonsense!
    We would all live in a free country If it weren’t for a bunch of clueless, tyrannical, finger wagging nannies.
    Nobody wants that!

  41. the thing is that if it wasn’t for her, no one would be talking about the need for Innovators for solving the problems. I mean she did have an impact and made some people think and write.
    درمان اضطراب بدون دارو

    1. “the thing is that if it wasn’t for her, no one would be talking about the need for Innovators for solving the problems. I mean she did have an impact and made some people think and write.”

      Bullshit.
      She is a distraction at best and a polarizing agent at worst. Her juvenile whining has advanced efforts for remediation not one bit.

  42. I have a better idea: stop wasting money on non-problems. We have serious environmental issues to deal with. Climate hysteria burns $1.5 Trillion per year and I’m not even making up that number. It’s from the non skeptical Climate Change Business Journal,

    Think of what we could do for the environment with that kind of money.

    1. “Think of what we could do for the environment with that kind of money.”

      To hell with the environment. Think of what that kind of money could do for the oil business.

      1. The oil business is self sufficient, thank you very much.

        Environmental causes, not so much.

      2. “To hell with the environment. Think of what that kind of money could do for the oil business.”

        Rely on bullshit artists like trueman to demonize ‘the oil business’.
        Fuck off, you pathetic piece of shit.

  43. “to Solve Climate Change”
    There’s nothing to “solve.”

  44. There is no “Climate Change” if you are referring to anthropomorphic global warming, the old name before they orwelled the term. What’s up with reason, maybe you should call the mag Unreason.

    1. Reason has officially changed its name to:

      Feelings

  45. I see that the Russian trolls are adamant about this topic.

    1. “I see that the Russian trolls are adamant about this topic.”

      From a fucking lefty ignoramus.

  46. I am beyond caring anymore. Now my goal is simply to live long enough to see the morons who overpopulate this planet kill themselves off.

    1. “I am beyond caring anymore. Now my goal is simply to live long enough to see the morons who overpopulate this planet kill themselves off.”

      If you believe that lie, please prove you are not a hypocrite; commit suicide where we can’t smell you.

  47. “if one of them foregoes lucrative investments,”

    Should be “forgoes.”

  48. No need to worry.

    We will be hit by a giant asteroid soon enough.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmack/2019/09/13/earth-will-be-hit-by-an-asteroid-just-not-the-huge-pair-flying-by-now/#4b2474d56edb

    So I figure we have about 10 years to learn how to live in space or underwater.

  49. Greta: Would you trade re-activation of Germany’s nuclear power plants for a shutdown of its coal plants?

  50. I know this article was written by the dumbest Reason contributor ever but I would like to know what the heck is a “collective action problem”? Are we on Reason or on the Workers Party of America website? Are we know solving coordination problems “collectively” or through the “collective”? And “preventing action”? I am confused. These “collective problems” are “preventing action” by whom? By the State? I have never met Robert W. Poole, Jr. and Manuel S. Klausner but I knew Tibor R. Machan quite well and he would be surpirsed to read about “collective action problems” to be solved by the State in Reason…

    1. now (not know) and surprised (not surpirsed)

    2. You have a lot of allies here; we’re willing to give a pass here, simply because it’s the best she’s put out in a LONG time…

  51. Shikha, you do not know what you are talking about!! And no one is an expert on climate change.
    You wrote: “The Sixth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that preserving the planet as we know it will require keeping the global mean surface temperature at no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above the average temperature in the 19th century before the industrial revolution.” Their conclusion is meaningless. They have no crystal ball; climate changes; always has, always will. The forces involved are too complex to comprehend. “Models” are just theories, can’t be proved, can’t be tested.
    Real scientists remain humble, they understand that complex systems with almost no data history and with an unknown number of important parameters (parameters the variations of which cannot be predicted or controlled) cannot be predicted or controlled. Buy into the faith-based religion of climate change hysteria, and you will sell out to freedom-suppressing state solutions.
    Free people exercising their intelligence and creativity can adapt to change, slaves in chains cannot. Surrender your freedom to those who peddle fear, and you will wind up a slave.

    1. “Models” are just theories, can’t be proved, can’t be tested.

      Wrong. Models are tested continuously. All 103 climate models that rely on CO2 as the primary driver are, of course, when compared with empirically derived data, wrong by more than 2x the standard error, and all are too hot, i.e. they have a less than 2% chance of being right.

  52. “Human-caused global warming is real”
    NO IT ISN’T

    #LearnSomeDamnPhysics

    And the rational 0 carbon source of energy is obvious and competitive : Nuclear .

    1. What are the physics that prove that AGW isn’t real?

      1. “What are the physics that prove that AGW isn’t real?”

        Sarc or stupidity?

  53. The reason they bring out a 16 year old girl is that much of the American public will not listen to scientists.

    1. Which ‘scientists’ are those, someone claiming to be skeptical? Only the ones who agree with you?

      Viator
      September.30.2019 at 5:48 pm
      “More than 500 scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have sent a “European Climate Declaration” to the Secretary-General of the United Nations asking for a long-overdue, high-level, open debate on climate change. “There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent,” they declared. “However, CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly. For instance, wind turbines kill birds and bats, and palm-oil plantations destroy the biodiversity of the rainforests.” The signatories of the declaration also insist that public policy must respect scientific and economic realities and not just reflect the most fashionable frenzy of the day.
      https://principia-scientific.org/500-scientists-to-un-there-is-no-climate-emergency/

    2. The reason they bring out a 16 year old girl is that much of the American public will not listen to scientists.

      Scientists also proposed eugenics, racism, and socialism. The US public is smart not to listen to scientists when they advocate social or economic policies because policies are not the domain of science.

      And rolling out children as human shields for reprehensible policies is an old trick of totalitarian propaganda machines. Of course, Greta isn’t a great pick to begin with; she’s a rich, spoiled little brat throwing a temper tantrum, and any adult’s first reaction is to want to send her to her room. Greta suffers from affluenza, and it’s not pretty.

    1. Great? No. She’s actually a victim of autism affluenza.

  54. Sheika, it may be that you did NOT go through grade school here in the USA. Had you done, perhaps you would have studied and learned about the “carbon cycle” on this planet, the “trip” carbon takes from being in one state or form through several others and back.

    You see, there are no more molecules of carbon on this planet now than there were five thousand years ago. The molecules that ARE here simply “travel” about from one state or form or organism to another. Much like rain falls when the sky can no longer hold it as vapour, runs into streams, rivers, lakes, eventually the ocean, gets evapourated, rises, forms rain, so on and on and on.

    Carbon dioxide levels today are quite a bit lower (a good twenty percent) than it seems they were a few thousand years ago. Further, carbon dioxide is DEFINITELYB NOT A GREENHOUSE GAS,, so get over that one.

    Don’t lower your own self to the barmy level of this little kid.

    1. Carbon dioxide levels today are quite a bit lower (a good twenty percent) than it seems they were a few thousand years ago.

      Nonsense.

      urther, carbon dioxide is DEFINITELYB NOT A GREENHOUSE GAS,, so get over that one.

      Nonsense again.

      Look, you’re likely an agent provocateur, and climate change activist pretending to be an extra-dumb climate change “denier”.

      Climate change is happening to some degree and human carbon emissions contribute to it; that follows from data you can check for yourself. Where the climate activists go wrong is in the implications of those facts, namely (1) that this is a serious problem, (2) that we can do something about it, and (3) that government is the way to do it. In fact, climate change will only have a modest effect on the global economy many decades from now, a massive effort to prevent carbon emissions is ineffective and irrational today, and government action is unlikely to be able to result in meaningful changes to outcomes anyway.

  55. On the plus side a new study says that red meat and processed meat are OK. (Heads to refrigerator to make another corned beef sandwich)

    https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2752328/unprocessed-red-meat-processed-meat-consumption-dietary-guideline-recommendations-from

  56. But the whole premise is absurd.
    Not only are we not in control of global temperature, CO2 is not in control of global temperature. And we are not in control of CO2.
    Climate change is a given, not a problem.
    CO2 mitigation is a problem, not a solution.
    CO2 warms us, and cools us, and feeds us. It’s not a pollutant
    .
    Man produces about 30% of the annual increase, resulting in 4% of the current CO2 being of human origin. So what? It doesn’t make a measurable difference at these levels. Plants love it. They grow larger and lusher and more drought resistant. We eat them, and the animals that eat them. It’s all good.

    CO2’s GHG effect diminishes exponentially. 50% of the CO2 GH effect is in the first 20 ppm, and we’re in the fifth half-life of exponential decay. Do the math. That means that the next doubling to 800ppm will add less than 2% to CO2’s effect.

    Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen.

  57. Nor, for that matter, do we need finger wagging about anything from third rate, ignorant Indian journalist immigrants like you, Shika.

    Go find yourself a job at MSNBC, Shika, and stop pretending that you’re a libertarian.

  58. oh please do not make me have to deal with an entitled 16 year whining girl. the twitterization of everyone’s blatherings just too much to stomach.

    I NEVER WANT TO HEAR FROM A TEENAGER ABOUT HER FEELINGS

    WHY AM I READING THIS DRIVEL ON REASON?

  59. bernie sanders and ocasio cortez bumped uglies…and we have this self important gas bag. she has a big future ahead as the news cycle pukes up he high school grade rants

  60. Helicopter rides become less and less of a meme with every passing day.

  61. “In that drama, Queen Cersei chooses to free-ride rather than join other kingdoms in fighting the forces of Armageddon.”

    No spoiler alert???????!!!!!!!

  62. We already have the technology needed to solve climate change, but fossil fuel companies spend literally hundreds of millions of dollars a year lobbying politicians to make it difficult to build offshore wind farms and put solar panels on your roof.

    1. ^ This is the kind of ignorant, low-information voter Democrats are targeting.

      No, we don’t have “the technology needed to solve climate change”; we don’t even have the technology to move anywhere close to zero emissions overall, or even just for electric generation.

      If we press hard on advancing nuclear energy (breeder reactors, Thorium), we might reduce emissions substantially in a few decades using that. Until then, we have to rely on fossil fuels and energy savings, like the entire world is literally working as hard as possible on.

    2. I say give them what they want.

      Pick a date, any date.

      On October 14th, shut down every coal and gas fired power plant down for 1 week. Forbid any POV from driving on public streets.

      I’d give it 48 hours. Without iPhones and internet, they’d be begging to turn the power back on.

  63. Ahh, the power of irony. “My childhood has been stolen” to a bunch of climate change people who likely all flew to this conference, took a taxi from the airport and spent the days eating 3X as much food as they need. That meeting probably resulted in about as much “carbon footprint” as a single family in a 1st world country makes in their lifetime. Or a village in a 3rd world country makes in 100 years. Yeah, lets all jump on planes, take limos and taxis around the city, get together and eat meat until we’re sick and talk about how everyone else is destroying the environment. Do as I say, not as I do.

    Here’s a clue. You want to help? Use WebEx for your meetings and stop sucking down 20 barrels of oil per person to “talk to world leaders” (who sucked down 2000 barrels of oil to get there on private planes and motorcades). Then I might have some interest in listening to you. Until then, no thanks, the hypocrisy is FAR too thick for me to breathe, I’ll stick with smog.

  64. The world is gone mad..climate changing, vr, ai, everything is moving in some weird crazy direction. its getting harder to keep namaste, but avoiding the problems not helping , but seems like it’s already bigger than humanity could fix..so just keep calm, be good, take care of yourself and your nerves with http://www.iessaywritingservice.com and take care of the planet

  65. Greta: go to your room. You’re old enough to know better.

    And at 16, you’re also old enough to reflect on the fact that these videos are going to haunt you for the rest of your life.

  66. Angry, irritated and mad as heck…she fits the liberal mold to a tee. As the Einstein of climate change with a PHD in propaganda and face scrunching, Greta has convinced me to build an insulated ice room to hunker down in so I won’t melt come 2032. And as a child who has lost her childhood, I say so what? Join the club and get over it. It’s not going to be much fun becoming an adult especially if you are so full of hate and resentment and a Marxist to boot. You are going to be one sad and lonely person.

Please to post comments