Are all Climate crisis deniers conspiracy theorists?

[Jeeves]

?? So is the Amazon, London and Nashville. Not sure what that has to do with anything.

And there you have the nub and kernel of climate change denial.
Outside of that bubble, decisions, acts, consequences, sequelae and effects are connected.

 

[spidergoat]

Sometimes equal opportunity with unequal outcomes works best. Everyone being poor isn't a great outcome even though it's equal.

In a time of resource surplus, that might be true, but with resource limitations, an economic model of endless growth is suicide.

 

[iceaura]

The obstacles to AGW are political, you are correct finally.

AGW response. Not AGW.
Finally? It's been standard AGW response analysis for years now.
Or as the realists put it: first, we have to take out the Republican Party. Nothing will get done until then.

You sound like every right winger I've ever heard who claims that renewables are too expensive, and are a form of rich people's welfare.

And since you aren't paying attention to physical reality and fantasy, right and wrong, accurate and mistaken, form and content, you talk about what things sound like to you.

The cheapest thing in the short term - and the most expensive in the long term - is to continue to do nothing, citing expense and difficulty.

Yep. That's the ugly side of the corporate push for nuclear power - it amounts to daunting expense and long delay, extending the window of fossil fuel profits and then delivering a shortfall of power under concentrated central control - a control which will be for sale in world in which fossil fuel corporations have huge piles of cash.

That's the best possible outcome - no bad accidents, no terrorism, no autocratic coup.

So we should forget about the nukes yesterday (except for the mitigation of risk and harm from what we are already hostage to), and start doing what needs doing as efficiently as possible.

 

[billvon]

And since you aren't paying attention to physical reality and fantasy, right and wrong, accurate and mistaken, form and content, you talk about what things sound like to you.

Ah, we've reached the point where you are out of reality based arguments and you feel you have to resort to insults. Insult away! Says a lot about the validity of your arguments.

Yep. That's the ugly side of the corporate push for nuclear power - it amounts to daunting expense and long delay, extending the window of fossil fuel profits and then delivering a shortfall of power under concentrated central control - a control which will be for sale in world in which fossil fuel corporations have huge piles of cash.

Yep. And thirty years ago, we all heard about how solar and wind were pie-in-the-sky impossibly expensive fantasies for rich elitist liberals. And they had proof - solar was $10 a watt, and didn't work at night, and storage was impossible without massive lead acid batteries that would be catastrophic environmental disasters.

Fortunately, those arguments failed, as yours will. Progress will continue.

So we should forget about the nukes yesterday

Sorry. Progress is not going to stop just because you don't like it. Nuclear will provide baseload power, solar will provide daytime power, and wind will provide opportunistic power.

 

[Seattle]

In a time of resource surplus, that might be true, but with resource limitations, an economic model of endless growth is suicide.

There's no economic model that "requires" endless growth.

 

[Seattle]

AGW response. Not AGW.
Finally? It's been standard AGW response analysis for years now.
Or as the realists put it: first, we have to take out the Republican Party. Nothing will get done until then.

Finally as in you posted something that was accurate, finally. You mainly just rant about the Republican Party, as you've done again. Most people on here aren't Republican and yet that's all you've got it seems. It's pretty boring and repetitive, don't you think?

 

[Seattle]

Ah, we've reached the point where you are out of reality based arguments and you feel you have to resort to insults. Insult away! Says a lot about the validity of your arguments.

Yep. And thirty years ago, we all heard about how solar and wind were pie-in-the-sky impossibly expensive fantasies for rich elitist liberals. And they had proof - solar was $10 a watt, and didn't work at night, and storage was impossible without massive lead acid batteries that would be catastrophic environmental disasters.

Fortunately, those arguments failed, as yours will. Progress will continue.

Sorry. Progress is not going to stop just because you don't like it. Nuclear will provide baseload power, solar will provide daytime power, and wind will provide opportunistic power.

Ice doesn't do well with progress, change, etc. The solution to everything? Just roll time back to the pre-Reagan days. Simple.

 

[billvon]

There's no economic model that "requires" endless growth.

The economic model we have now requires endless growth (and the corresponding inflation) to repay our debts. We live in a debt-based economy, and the only way that works is endless growth - by assuming the future can always pay back the present.

We should get away from that IMO.

 

[Seattle]

The economic model we have now requires endless growth (and the corresponding inflation) to repay our debts. We live in a debt-based economy, and the only way that works is endless growth - by assuming the future can always pay back the present.

We should get away from that IMO.

Inflation is low and businesses don't have to grow. McDonald's doesn't have to open more stores. That they do so is not an economic model. That is what Radio Shack did as well. We don't need that many Radio Shacks.

There are plenty of small business that don't work that way. It's not a "requirement" of the system.

 

[billvon]

Inflation is low and business don't have to grow.

Any net positive inflation is the result of paradigm of limitless growth.

Consider that in a sustainable economic model, you'd see about the same amount of inflation as deflation. Yet we react to any prediction of deflation as a catastrophe.

McDonald's does have to open more stores. That they do so is not an economic model.

Of course. No one business decision is an "economic model." The sum of decisions that companies make, and the sum of decisions that central banks make, along with some market regulation, result in an economic model.

 

[Seattle]

Any net positive inflation is the result of paradigm of limitless growth.

Consider that in a sustainable economic model, you'd see about the same amount of inflation as deflation. Yet we react to any prediction of deflation as a catastrophe.

Of course. No one business decision is an "economic model." The sum of decisions that companies make, and the sum of decisions that central banks make, along with some market regulation, result in an economic model.

An increase in the demand for housing with no increase in housing results in inflation as well. It's not because of "limitless" growth. It could be because suddenly everyone wants a Pet Rock and they aren't being sold any longer.

 

[Jeeves]

There's no economic model that "requires" endless growth.

Of course not. Depressions are an equally important part of the cycle. Investors periodically need to lose their money in order to wipe out unsupportable debt.
That wouldn't be my #1 choice of inflation control, because the collateral damage is unpleasant, but it'll have to do.

 

[Seattle]

Of course not. Depressions are an equally important part of the cycle. Investors periodically need to lose their money in order to wipe out unsupportable debt.
That wouldn't be my #1 choice of inflation control, because the collateral damage is unpleasant, but it'll have to do.

That's not the #1 method of inflation control.

 

[Jeeves]

That's not the #1 method of inflation control.

What is?

 

[Seattle]

What is?

Monetary control?

 

[billvon]

An increase in the demand for housing with no increase in housing results in inflation as well. It's not because of "limitless" growth.

?? When population growth stops, so does increased demand for housing. So does inflation based on housing costs.

It could be because suddenly everyone wants a Pet Rock and they aren't being sold any longer.

Sure. And something else (Beanie Babies) will fall out of favor and drop in price. Those kinds of consumer purchases ebb and flow. In a stable non-growth market, the overall market for that stuff (call it the tchotchke market) remains stable when averaged over products and time.

 

[Seattle]

?? When population growth stops, so does increased demand for housing. So does inflation based on housing costs.

Sure. And something else (Beanie Babies) will fall out of favor and drop in price. Those kinds of consumer purchases ebb and flow. In a stable non-growth market, the overall market for that stuff (call it the tchotchke market) remains stable when averaged over products and time.

I was referring to individual markets. Housing prices can go up in SF just from limited supply and more people wanting to move to SF.

Regarding deflation, due to the psychology of it (among other things) it rarely turns out well. You also don' t want your assets, money, deflating. Some growth is generally good. It doesn't have to be "limitless".

Ultimately it depends on what kind of world you want to live in. You can manage population growth and keep a productive economy and maintain low inflation.

Or you can turn back the hands of time and go back to a local agrarian economy that few seem to want to go to.

More people in the world are currently better off than at most any time in the past if you look at the world as a whole, which you seem to do. More people in China, India and Africa are now better off than at most times in the past.

 

[billvon]

I was referring to individual markets. Housing prices can go up in SF just from limited supply and more people wanting to move to SF.

Right. And if population remains stable, then housing prices drop somewhere else because people move to SF. Which means that, countrywide, housing does not contribute to inflation.

Regarding deflation, due to the psychology of it (among other things) it rarely turns out well.

Exactly! We have been so conditioned to the idea of unlimited growth that the idea of losing that scares people.

Some growth is generally good. It doesn't have to be "limitless".

So what is the limit to growth? Because the two options are limitless growth or an end to growth,

Ultimately it depends on what kind of world you want to live in. You can manage population growth and keep a productive economy and maintain low inflation.

You can keep the same population with a productive economy with zero inflation. You just have to restructure (for example) the money system so money isn't constantly created through debt. For example, a simple solution is a gold standard. If you want to make a loan, first a bank has to collect the money from depositors.

Or you can turn back the hands of time and go back to a local agrarian economy that few seem to want to go to.

Or just keep the world closer to what it is now.

 

[Seattle]

Or just keep the world closer to what it is now.

That seems the best choice. The economy is good, inflation is low. Debt is ultimately a problem. That's a problem of irresponsible government.

The gold standard isn't a solution for anything.

 

[billvon]

That seems the best choice. The economy is good, inflation is low. Debt is ultimately a problem. That's a problem of irresponsible government.

You seem to think that what we are doing now is zero growth. It's not. The national debt is a symptom, not a root cause.