Former US Generals urge action on climate change (!?!)

[Che Guava]

One thing you left out: enforcement.

When a participant flakes on said agreement, how far are you prepared to go? And we come back to the question I previously posted. Are you prepared to use violent force?

As long as the largest members (oh, say the US...) commit for real, then you'll see a lot less 'flakes'. Unfortunately, the US put business ahead of environment.

I'm not disagreeing with you, enforcement is a problem, but if the big partners really do decide to go all the way, then things get a lot easier. For eg, if countries have to pay for carbon emissions, but decide not to, large partners (like the US, EU, Russia) can cut off aid, put economic embargos, etc. THere's no need for violent force here, as human life is not in imediate danger.

And this is just what the generals are saying: it's time for the US to work contructively with other countries to ensure that things really do get done, otherwise, the fallout could result in some serious military conflicts.

 

[Urederra]

They're not suggesting any solution in particular, or saying that we should use military solutions to the problem. All they are saying is that if climate change happens, there could be military consequences.

In other words, they are panicking.

 

[Che Guava]

In other words, they are panicking.

Yep. Blind, stinking panic....

Since when is talking about the practical consequences panicking? They forsee problems (some of them only in 30 years), and are pressing those in power to recognize them.

 

[Urederra]

Bad things can happen when a lot of people panic.

 

[Che Guava]

Bad things can happen when a lot of people panic.

ok, it's becoming obvious that you're either not reading my posts, or just not responding to their content. I'll be happy to chat with anyone else here, but I think our conversation has reached its endpoint.....

 

[GenMarshall]

So this is how it works. The Generals become concerned about something like the Enviornemnt, the Bush Cronies become interested in it.

 

[Urederra]

ok, it's becoming obvious that you're either not reading my posts, or just not responding to their content. I'll be happy to chat with anyone else here, but I think our conversation has reached its endpoint.....

For anybody who can read the whole thread it is obvious that you are not answering to my questions.

 

[amadeus]

To give some perspective, there are quite literally thousands of retired generals. The fact that ten or more care about one issue is not particularly surprising.

 

[Che Guava]

A fair point, but the names Gordon Sullivan and Anthony Zinni do carry some weight, don't they?

I really have no idea! Where is MobBoss when you need him

 

[Atlas14]

Global warming is a serious problem that will change what wars are being fought over, and how wars will be fought. I see no reason to hesitate taking action, our economy can only benefit from making environmental improvements in the long-run.

 

[GenMarshall]

I really have no idea! Where is MobBoss when you need him

Out defending the world against Liberals who are out to attack Bush?

/shrugs

 

[Urederra]

Global warming is a serious problem that will change what wars are being fought over, and how wars will be fought.

!?!?!?!? Care to ellaborate?

I see no reason to hesitate taking action, our economy can only benefit from making environmental improvements in the long-run.

If the economy can only benefit from making environmental improvements then those environmental improvements will be done by the industry, not by some retired generals, and they will be done regardless anthropogenic driven global warming is true or not.

 

[Atlas14]

!?!?!?!? Care to ellaborate?

If you take a look at the Middle East and Africa, damming of rivers has left virtaully no water for regions south of the dam, and will in the future be a huge factor/motive for war. Lake Chad is almos non-existant. If nations and citizens do not have access to water, how will they be able to wage a serious war?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/04/0426_lakechadshrinks.html

If the economy can only benefit from making environmental improvements then those environmental improvements will be done by the industry, not by some retired generals, and they will be done regardless anthropogenic driven global warming is true or not

Oh I agree, but both industrial concerns and military concerns should be taken seriously.

 

[History_Buff]

If the economy can only benefit from making environmental improvements then those environmental improvements will be done by the industry, not by some retired generals, and they will be done regardless anthropogenic driven global warming is true or not.

In the long run, everyone is dead.

Government FTW.

For anybody who can read the whole thread it is obvious that you are not answering to my questions.

No, for other people it looks a lot like you think that discussing climate change means panic. It does not.

Besides, What technologies are to talking about? Ethanol? Any other not developed yet?

Well, for one, batteries. By Centralizing electricity production, and then distributing out over existing grids, and in batteries for cars and such, it becomes much easier to improve efficiency and/or scrub your stack output.

One of my professors (and for you Urederra, his degree was in economics, not panicking) ran some basic calculations, and showed that by doing this, the US could reduce carbon output by about 60% over the next 20-30 years, in exchange for an increase of price of 2-6c/kWh. Thats low enough that you wouldn't even notice it next to inflation.

Then, somewhere down the line, we can look at changing over our power plants to Nuclear Power if feasible, various renewable alternatives, or if we get really lucky, Fusion Power.

 

[Bast]

I'm loving this. EVERYONE is getting on board.

I love the US military. :heart:

 

[Urederra]

In the long run, everyone is dead.


No, for other people it looks a lot like you think that discussing climate change means panic. It does not.

Well, you are saying that everybody is gonna die cos the global warming thingy. Some retired generals are predicting millions of displaced people, wars and famine. Is not something to panic about?

Well, for one, batteries. By Centralizing electricity production, and then distributing out over existing grids, and in batteries for cars and such, it becomes much easier to improve efficiency and/or scrub your stack output.

Umpf... Batteries are not a primary source of energy, You need energy to charge the batteries. And they are expensive, environmentally dangerous and inefficient, they lose energy over time if the battery is not used. And good luck with running a truck powered by batteries.

One of my professors (and for you Urederra, his degree was in economics, not panicking) ran some basic calculations, and showed that by doing this, the US could reduce carbon output by about 60% over the next 20-30 years, in exchange for an increase of price of 2-6c/kWh. Thats low enough that you wouldn't even notice it next to inflation.

Economics was the science of the wrong predictions of the 19th century. (Malthus and company) Climatology is the science of the wrong prediction of the 21st century.

Moreover, if you centralize energy production and then you distribute the energy produced, you are going to lose power transporting energy. Decentralizing energy production yields better results, both economically and environmentally since less energy is wasted in the transportation.

Then, somewhere down the line, we can look at changing over our power plants to Nuclear Power if feasible, various renewable alternatives, or if we get really lucky, Fusion Power.

Nuclear power and solar/wind power are OK, but there is no way you can run a car efectively with nuclear, solar or wind power. But hey, if you know how to, then go ahead. Nobody is stopping you.

And if it is so easy and economically feasible that everybody is going to change because the change is not traumatic at all then Why some retired generals are warning about possible world conflicts due to the predicted effects of global warming?

 

[Verbose]

Umpf... Batteries are not a primary source of energy, You need energy to charge the batteries. And they are expensive, environmentally dangerous and inefficient, they lose energy over time if the battery is not used. And good luck with running a truck powered by batteries.

I think the point is that we are so much better at producing than storing the energy we generate. If we bump up our performance on storage, we can reduce poduction with minimal aconomic ill effects, but will at the same time be able to use less fossil fuels and reduce emissions.

 

[Urederra]

Yeah, if we could make better batteries, that would be very good economically and environmentally, but, same as with the fission power he mentioned, they are not available yet. You cannot rely on technology that hasn't discovered yet.

It would be awesome to have room temperature superconductor materials for both transporting and storing energy without loses, but the technology is not available yet, and you cannot predict whether it will be available.

Same goes for fission power, although I find fission power more likely to be a reality, but I cannot tell when.

 

[BasketCase]

As long as the largest members (oh, say the US...) commit for real, then you'll see a lot less 'flakes'.

Yeah, sure, right. In the same way that Islamic theocracies are getting in step with the U.S. on womens' rights.

Gotcha.

What actually happens is this: when you step up and take one for the team, everybody else steps way back so the only kiester that gets hit by the incoming punt is yours.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

One thing you left out: enforcement.

When a participant flakes on said agreement, how far are you prepared to go? And we come back to the question I previously posted. Are you prepared to use violent force?

If not, then it is likely to fail for the same reason Kyoto did: because the signatories paid lip service to it and then flaked on it.

"Taking action" also refers to researching cleaner, efficient and possibly cheaper energy.

If there is progress there we won't need enforcement. But research like that is very long term, so even if we still have 30 years, it's about time we got some results. After all, we can't wait for 30 years and then start to try to change the way we produce and use energy. Research, development, implementation take up a lot of time.

I wouldn't call it panic either, just realism.