This is my first post, but after reading around here for a few days, I get the feeling that hubski welcomes alternative views, so here it goes: Here's why legislation to affect climate change is a bad idea:
Let's assume Climate change is happening and it is due to human use of carbon based energy which creates a greenhouse effect. Let's not deny it and fully accept it as a reality. In less than 10 years we will have small fusion reactors in commercial operation. Any legislation to combat climate change will be obsolete and used against the people and against free enterprise at the expense of the economy and for the consolidation of a more powerful world government. Let's remember who pushes the climate change agenda: the UN. Why? Because this is a global problem which can only be solved by a global power and the only global power that has the authority to solve this problem is the UN. Climate Change is a global power grab by the UN and not much more.
"Climate Change is a global power grab by the UN and not much more." That's not correct. Climate change is a fact being pushed by scientists, attempting to re-frame this as an argument against "world government" is folly.
I disagree, because this is very much a politicization of a scientific finding. The issue is not whether or not the science is right, but what should be done about the findings. The fact that the "debate" is framed as being between so called climate "deniers" and scientists goes to show how the media skews the actual political debate. The debate is not between climate deniers and scientists, it's between economists and regulators. @tehstone linked this article in his comment above. While this article is also biased, it does give insight as to what people are really talking about in the "debate". The fact of the matter is that the UN is the primary force behind pushing climate change regulations, and as a political entity, one must have caution when looking at the motivations behind the reports they choose to publish. To keep from bias, one must keep an agenda in mind; this goes for any political organization and any funding source for any science.
But Alex Jones told me that world government FEMA concentration camps UN takeover conspiracy world government illuminati and we all need Ecoloblue Water Stations. And guns.
Climate change is real + powerful groups try to use it to their advantage can both be true at the same time. Alex Jones has a strange mix of fact and fiction going on. That is, he definitely has a point sometimes. But then he connects his points and suddenly it's about the illuminati lizzard queen again. Of course, for all I know, it really is the illuminati lizzards behind it all. Kind of hard to prove a negative and the world really is a strange place. I am however quite certain that Alex Jones's main interest is: Alex Jones and his bank account. Erm... but what the hell was going on in Bohemian Grove? And why am I never invited to Bilderberg meetings? Was 9/11 an inside job? I DEMAND ANSWERS!
I truly hope that Lockheed's reactor (or any one of the other unconventional nuclear projects) comes off. However, I think we have to remember that: - The project may not succeed; a lot of smart people have been given significant funding to try and develop fusion systems for many years. It may be that Lockheed's team have cracked it, but we can't bet on that with certainty now. Let us say that the likelihood of success is 80%; this leaves a 20% likelihood of failure. - If the best-effort predictions of our climate scientists about what will happen if we do little or nothing to cut emissions come to pass, the consequences will be tragic and disastrous; the cost associated will be beyond a sane reckoning - In a cost-benefit analysis, we need to multiply out the contingencies; we have a breakdown that looks like this: Outcome A: do nothing, achieve fusion
Outcome B: do nothing, fusion turns out to be harder than we thought
Outcome C: regulate, achieve fusion
Outcome D: do nothing, achieve fusion In each case, we need probability * consequence. I have not got figures for a monetisation of the consequence of adverse climate change, nor for the consequence of adverse effects of regulation. However, it is plausible to me that the cost of adverse climate change may well be tens or hundreds of times the cost of some extra bureaucracy and regulation. I would also submit that the costs of inaction should be weighed more heavily than the costs of action, because effects on the climate look to be irreversible beyond certain levels, whereas effects on economic growth or the political structures we operate under may be more reversible. As a further factor, consider the economics around energy use; to entirely prevent the use of coal, oil, gas and so on, the Lockheed system will need to profitably sell energy at lower than the cost at which all these things become entirely unprofitable to operate, accounting for the existing extraction and distribution infrastructure being in place. There is a lot of heavy industry and transport infrastructure that will not suddenly become electrified when fusion works. Now, it may be that if fusion arrives the build-out curves and so on indicate that fossil fuels become entirely obsolete before we emit more than the maximum safe level. However, if it does not pan out like this, we may still have to voluntarily (collectively) avoid using fuels that are economically attractive even though fusion is solved. Finally, concerns about the grabbing of power; I have more fear about the laws of physics taking power from me and my elected assembly than the laws of other men. If we push the climate in a direction that means there is not enough food to go around some years, the fact that I have a nominal freedom to burn stuff I took out of the ground will not offset the practical loss of freedom that arises from not having enough food. Now, I do work for a charity with a goal of decarbonising the energy system in my country, and so it may be that I have been memetically co-opted and am unable to think about this properly. I really hope that is true, as I would much rather be wrong about this than right. Perhaps a technical solution will emerge; CCS will prove straightforward, new nuclear will bear fruit, we'll be able to use fischer-tropf to make fuel, nuclear desalination to make water, fleets of autonomous electric vehicles will fully optimise our transport system, and all of these things will happen of their own accord so rapidly as to render fossil fuels irrelevant before we have emitted too much CO2, and maybe this will all take place in a political climate of increasing freedom and prosperity. God willing, I will look back on this time in my life as an old man and laugh at my foolish notions! However, on the evidence that we see today I cannot in good conscience weigh that as the likely outcome and act accordingly.
I'd almost forgotten about Skunk Works. If that's of interest to you, you can find some previous discussion on that topic here. Outside of that, I agree with you on this being a global problem and one that's hard to tackle because there is currently little to no incentive for developing nations to buy into legislation on climate change, and not enough meaningful push from the legislative bodies of developed nations to get anything done.
We have large fission reactors that are completely safe and environmentally negligible. But cars still use gas, industry still makes emissions.
The leading culprit for carbon emissions in the travel sector is the shipping and freight industry. We could have a fission reactor that is relatively safe on every boat like the military does with subs, but you'd need a highly trained nuclear physicist on each boat to handle that correctly. According to this awesome chart, it's quite clear that it is the energy sector producing the largest amount of CO2. If Fusion reactors are a required means of producing grid energy, then our travel emissions will be easily balanced out naturally, especially if we can require reactors on freighters and large ocean transport since I believe that is about 3% of total world emissions and a good chunk of travel emissions. Plus with battery cars like Tesla getting more popular, consumer emissions will continue to shrink. The problem with fission reactors is that while they are safe, people don't want them in their backyard and a lot of regulations get in their way. They also need extra cost fortification when compared to other power sources and startup is difficult. Plus with Fukushima, almost everyone has realized that the "Black swan" phenomenon is not so unlikely. They also have a long term cost of radioactive waste and storage or recycling. Fusion byproducts are not very dangerous. It's only bottlenecks will be dealing with corporate interests that are not aligned with companies producing fusion (and increase cost of startup or bad press, etc.) and scalability/distribution of the reactors. 10 years to get to market another 5 or ten to scale and we have reduced all our carbon emissions form the energy sector. This is one reason why I'm not worried about global warming. It is not a doomsday scenario at all.