Can Solar & Wind Fix Everything (e.g., Climate Change) with a battery break-through?

[MTM98290]

fpgt72, Americans are not good at the forced upon,

We have been forced upon, for a long time, it just takes the right pre conditioning to get people to go along. Engineered problem>predetermined action>desired solution.

 

[aenyc]

We have been forced upon, for a long time, it just takes the right pre conditioning to get people to go along. Engineered problem>predetermined action>desired solution.

Spot on.
People are controlled by a false narrative that has been implanted in their mind.

How To Save The World | Minds

by James Corbettcorbettreport.comNovember 21, 2020Pop quiz: What's the most powerful weapon ever invented?The MOAB? you ask, quizzically. No...

www.minds.com

"
Story is the most powerful weapon. Narrative. Ideas presented in such a way as to provoke certain thoughts or actions.

With a gun you can kill a man. With a bomb you can kill a family. With a nuke you can level a city. But with a story you can control the world.

This is how billions of people around the world have been locked up as prisoners in their own homes this past year. Not because there is an inexhaustible supply of police thugs standing on every street corner ready to shoot anyone who steps outside of their home, but because a narrative has been constructed such that the vast majority want to stay home. Give a society the right narrative and they will gladly lock themselves inside their own prison and hand over the key.

This is why billions around the globe are prepared to roll up their sleeves for an experimental, unproven "vaccine" for a disease with a 99% survival rate. The masses have been given a narrative whereby this "vaccine" is going to deliver them from a deadly plague. It doesn't matter what counter-evidence is presented to them; the ones who take the vaccine are the righteous heroes of this story, and those who question the vaccines are the villains. (Like Svetz and the like and cLIEmate change - no matter how much counter evidence you give them they keep parroting the same crap over and over and over)

This is also why—as I'm at pains to point out over and over again in my #PropagandaWatch series—the powers that shouldn't be spend so much time, money and effort propagandizing the public. If the world could be ruled over simply by posting armed guards on every street corner and listening devices in every home, you better believe that those who seek to rule over you would do that instead. But how could they get the armed guards to police their fellow citizens? How could they get the snoops to listen in on their neighbors? Where would the enforcers come from? The population needs to be told a compelling story about why the rulers are ruling and why it is wrong to resist their rule. If such a story is secure in their minds, they will happily police themselves.

There is a flip side to this seemingly depressing insight, however. Yes, people can be tricked into enslaving themselves through propaganda and narrative manipulation. To a large extent, that explains the situation we find ourselves in today. But the inverse is also true. We can be freed by a narrative that helps us to break out of our mental prison. One storyteller with a compelling tale to tell can re-frame our collective reality in an instant, and the world will change all at once.

Sadly, it seems that the powers that shouldn't be are much more aware of this than we are.

This is why the Dutch army is targeting dissenting voices in the Netherlands.

This is why the Canadian military declared that they were going to target the Canadian public in the information war (but don't worry, they totally scrapped that plan).

This is why the British army has an entire cyber brigade dedicated to influencing public behavior online, as does the US military, the Israelis, the Chinese and Russians and every other major government in the world.

It is because the great resetters and the new world order agenda-setters recognize the power of story and they fear the rise of a powerful storyteller. They're afraid of dissenters coming along and disrupting their carefully constructed narrative. In the days of yore they would label those subverting their narrative control a heretic and burn them at the stake. Today they label them as agents of disinformation and seek to censor them out of existence. But the fear that motivates these responses is the same."

 

[TommySr]

it just takes the right pre conditioning to get people to go along

MTMT89290, or in this case the right salesman(the world), if it was just US capitalist or US government
deep state that was pushing the argument(global warming), not sure I would have been sold on the idea.
as we speak all industrial countries are looking at this issue to some degree.

because I'm north of 42nd parallel some global warming would be a good thing for me and mine.
as we seen this winter, we had 70's temperatures in January first time in my life I've seen that
and it was sweet . my heating costs this winter were the lower ever.

 

[aenyc]

MTMT89290, or in this case the right salesman(the world), if it was just US capitalist or US government
deep state that was pushing the argument(global warming), not sure I would have been sold on the idea.
as we speak all industrial countries are looking at this issue to some degree.

So you noticed that national governments are completely subservant to the globalist oligarchy? Congratulations! (As someone who speaks at least 6 languages (and together with ms we speak 10+), it amazed me how during covid the same propaganda was circulated in mainstream media of almost every country, paraphrased almost word for word).

 

[fpgt72]

fpgt72, Americans are not good at the forced upon, IMO all these pie in the sky innovations are going
to come from businesses(making money), education(collages/universities/labs) or governments that
can make them types of investments without instant rewards.

Look around you, americans will have a great many things forced upon them. As long as their belly is full they will grumble and go along with it.

 

[TommySr]

americans will have a great many things forced upon them.

fpgt72, that's one way to read it. myself I wonder what opportunities it offers the young.

 

[Checkthisout]

The idea is to get you paying more for energy.

Just as they have done with "housing".

They can chew up a larger percentage of your income into fixed costs. You either pay the power bill or without heat or necessities.

 

[fpgt72]

The idea is to get you paying more for energy.

Just as they have done with "housing".

They can chew up a larger percentage of your income into fixed costs. You either pay the power bill or without heat or necessities.

They also control you energy. Easy to cut you off, turn up your tstat whatever. In the end it is about control.

 

[D71]

My electric cost $1477 a year should I spend thousands to cut that out? That is about $123 a month. I’m running heat pump with electric emergency.

The UL inverter just by itself cost more

Is Green deal worth it? I have to be 100% code compliant. I still have tto pay electric company minimum of $42 or so for membership every month No matter what pump into grid which they rob me if try. I have to buy and install my own transformer to send power back into grid. Hahahaha Green deal is right shit ton money out of my bank …

How much is your average electric bill?

 

[aenyc]

The idea is to get you paying more for energy.

Just as they have done with "housing".

They can chew up a larger percentage of your income into fixed costs. You either pay the power bill or without heat or necessities.

Money is just means of control.
They do not actually care about it. They have access to infinite money spigot via printing press.

 

[D71]

Elon already made them mad:….they did samething to Ford to show him who really in charge. He shut his news paper down and went after his work force. Twitter was an upset. So history repeats. Cookie cutters must never get dull. Or they are just to lazy come up new ways to control and manipulate ppl like Musk.

MSN

 

[MTM98290]

Not seeing that.

I know that you can not see it, but it is happening regardless. The 'Climate Crisis' induced by CO2 is based an appeal to authority, plain and simple. Trust the experts, right?

Well, two things...first keep in mind those promoting disbelief also have motives. Secondly, most of that funding is what the government throws to keep universities running, not like they have to cry wolf to get funding. They'd just ask for a new collider or something.

We all have motives to some degree. I do not believe in unbiased humans. I have a motive, it is that I care about the fate of humanity. I have a survival instinct. I make no money from Oil. I could likely make money selling climate change fear though.

Universities fund what they deem to be beneficial in some sense. They don't fund research that embarrasses them and destroy whole areas of study within the institution.

They can build another collider, I wonder which death based diety they will dance in support of outside that hypothetical collider?

Or maybe they could spend money on bio research labs.
Or maybe they could study how to remotely disable and control automobiles,
or test for the best frequency to use in TVs to induce trance-like states in primates,
or studying the effects of untreated Syphilis in poor unaware victims.
Or they could pipe diesel exhaust into a room to test just exactly how bad fine particulate matter is for a human being at 40X the accepted dangerous level.

There are so many ways to spend our money doing evil it is unbeliveable.

If you can't test it and are unsure, then the you also can't disprove it. So why so passionate about it? Why believe only one side of it?

Because the side that wants me to believe it also benefits from it, and they want most of us dead.

Because they are civilizational arsonists who desire to 'build back better' with largely inferior systems that will line the pockets of those who seek control for the sake of power.
Because I won't eat bugs.
Because I want humanity to be free.

You shall be known by the company you keep.
Those who insist that the climate is in crisis also told us;

2 weeks to stop the spread...masks reduce risk of transmission of an aerosolized virus...the 'Vaccine' is safe and effective...two men can have a baby...math is racist and so on.

'Trust the Science' and 'I am the Science' became, 'take the shot or you can't work,or shop, or live.'

Those who want me to believe in climate catastrophe want the population reduced to 500 million. They want us to eat bugs while they fly around in private jets to armored hideouts.

The establishment want us under control and they can't do that if we have a means to be energy independent.

Just Stop Oil just used a couple of duped elderly ladies to attempt at breaking the glass protecting the Magna Carta. What a perfect example. Two well meaning old ladies attempting to destroy the document which essentially declared humanity's value and cemented the philosophy for Western Civilization, all because they believe that their is a threat that isn't there.

Again, I'm not seeing facts to back this up other than "I haven't personally tested and therefore disbelief any graph you post as it could be cherry-picked data even it's the last 20 years or 10 million years and it therefore my conclusion is it is false".

Yes knowledge by authority. I don't have to trust the narrative, and I don't.

Does that not also apply to those bamboozling others into believing there's doubt about the actual science?

If you go to homedepot, is the price difference between a new heat pump and natural-gas new furnace really that different? They look like they're about twice the cost per BTU. But for some, despite the natural gas costing them more, that can be a big difference.

Possibly that's why the government did the tax incentive for them. Depends on where you live, but a lot of states have rebates too. So doesn't look like much difference capitol-wise.

Apparently they have to disincentivize the sale of gas units.

Destroying vast swaths of land, like we did in Montana with with strip-mining lignite? Or pretty much anything we've ever done to fuel modern society? Remember the Deepwater Horizon oil spill? History is littered with abuses. Can we do better? Pretty sure we can.

Yes, those things are bad, we don't have to accept those things. The Deepwater Horizon was a story of Corporate greed and incompetence, had they been following standard protocol they would have had no issue. These sorts of issues are aslo possible in other extraction efforts, but I would argue that the US is better equipped to do these things aafely than some poor country that is working to keep their Chinese creditors happy.

But what does less harm over all? Lithium batteries are highly recyclable, so like aluminum, at some point we'll dig less out of the ground just to top-off as we've already got most of what we need. You're never going to be able to say that about fossil fuels unless you start extracting it from air and making green-fuel.

Just focusing on the sins of one and ignoring the worst sins of the other is not good land stewardship. Sounds like you should be for this.

I'm not ignoring anything, only doubting that anthropogenic CO2 is a threat

As I recall, Lithium is "mined" from clay deposits and is somewhat toxic. So, wouldn't removing it from surface deposits actually be making the area less toxic? ; -)


LFP doesn't use cobalt and won't suffer thermal run-away. A lot of the new ESS tech doesn't use anything rare (e.g., sodium batteries).

Sounds like quite the utopia.

LCOEs show Solar & Wind with ESS are currently at parity with the lowest form of hydrocarbon fuels (natural gas) and ESS prices are still falling.

Hell no. We should just add a carbon tax to remove the CO2 emitted by the ICE vehicle to correct the problem it causes. That gives consumers freedom of choice and let economics take it course.

You do understand that even if CO2 were a threat ICE vehicles don't contribute enough to worry about right?

Always has, always will. They don't need to make up a climate change boogie man to accomplish that

Yes but the magnitude of tyranny can be increased greatly when there is a good boogie man, plus since one can't find the boogie man anybody who doubts will be a 'denier.'

 

[Checkthisout]

My electric cost $1477 a year should I spend thousands to cut that out? That is about $123 a month. I’m running heat pump with electric emergency.

The UL inverter just by itself cost more

Is Green deal worth it? I have to be 100% code compliant. I still have tto pay electric company minimum of $42 or so for membership every month No matter what pump into grid which they rob me if try. I have to buy and install my own transformer to send power back into grid. Hahahaha Green deal is right shit ton money out of my bank …

How much is your average electric bill?

I'm at 10 cents a kwh.

Solar at the home is for kicks only if I were to ever indulge. And frankly just silly given our latitude.

It's a necessity at the cabin due to closest power being 1.5 miles away.


I spent more on the small cabin system which still needs a backup gen than I spend for 3 years worth of electricity at home in a fully electric house.

 

[D71]

Mine is purely emergency back up in summer. Which is weird because lot of ppl have heat pumps now. Tiny bit more use in summer to cool.

I just don’t see ppl dropping big coin for solar at current prices. Most in remote and way out with tiny homes maybe. The local electric holds ppl hostage then the bastards brag how all their facilities use solar panels to power them Damn.

Can’t cut them loose or county try condemn home. It is a racket and they have other requirements such as $42 a month fee…no matter what. New green deal is not friendly but about control and expensive. A power transformer requirement is a shit ton of money.

Racket by con men.

A generator is always a MUST have. They are friggin noisy as draw back and thirsty…..

Notice in other post SUPPOSEDLY Climate Environmentalist - mental ppl are attacking Elon Musk doing their Green Shit. Damn

 

[TommySr]

How much is your average electric bill?

D71, seems this winter was easier on my pocket book
once I get AC on solar life will be good

 

[Bongbong]

CO2 is required for plant life, CO2 is not a 'carbon emission' to be feared, it is a building block of life on the planet. While supplementing CO2 into greenhouses witlikewise hout other considerations will likely do little, it is just one thing that one does to increase yields. Fans in greenhouses are used to control humidity, temperture, and to clear out Oxygen rich air while replacing it with less oxygen dense air.

We can't add sunlight to plants in the greenhouse but can use artificial light. We can use fertilizers that are organic without much issue. And yes water requirements will increase as plants become larger and more productive.

Another thing to consider is the generational evolution of said plants on the long term. If the plants in a greenhouse are kept at high CO2 levels for many generations, their offspring will adapt by increasing the number of stomata that utilize CO2 for photosynthesis.

Calling CO2 plant food is simply irrelevant to the problem global warming due to massive amounts of greenhouse gases we pump into the atmosphere, as no one is arguing to remove CO2 from the atmosphere to pre-industrial levels. So what is the purpose of describing CO2 as plant food, if not an attempt to obfuscate the issue at hand? It is like arguing that water is necessary for plant growth whenever a toddler drowns.

 

[Bongbong]

Freedom does come with responsibility, and we exercise that responsibility every time we successfully pilot an automobile in a safe manner.

What I mean here is that if our local government puts solar on a building, it is just offsetting hydroelectric power from the grid. The turbines at the dam are making power, and really don't need any boost in the middle of the day when the sun is shining. At our latitude the time that we need electricity is when we don't have it. Our heaters do not run when solar is at its best potential.

I am against the Idea of governments taking our money to put solar on a government building only to have it feed into a grid, giving them a credit for power when it is actually needed. The building will still need to be heated at night and that will come from the grid anyway, so it is really just a way to save money for a given organization, at the cost to taxpayers or ratepayers. I could be wrong but I do not think that most government building installs are anything but grid tied and useless when the grid is down.

Now if a government has an off grid building in the tropics, it should by all means be powered by solar. All daytime consumption would be covered and there would be very little need for power overnight.

It may make sense, but usually government isn't very good at making the most economical decision, and left to it's own devices government will come up with ways to benefit itself and justify it's existence. The US has a lot of 'use it or lose it funding" which also invites massive waste.

Sadly people are not always responsible, even with all the regulation, the US, with about 100 deaths a day, is rated as the sixth highest motor-vehicle deaths per 100 million vehicle miles compared to other countries, according to the US national safety council web site. What do you think would happen if you abolish government regulations? Personally, I would like you to try to end government regulation, it would be interesting to see how an advanced society like the US improved or declined when all regulations were ended. (Just don't ask me to participate as I have seen first hand how people elsewhere in the world act when there is little to no government regulations)

When the government building uses electricity from solar on the building it doesn't have to buy it elsewhere, if they can sell the excess good for them. I have no problem with that, I even encourage that as it saves tax money, that money can be returned in lowering taxes, used for paying of the debt, or on something else, I will leave that up to the voters. As for the dams, I hear your lakes are drying up, with lake mead down nearly 50 meters, even if they weren't those lakes function as huge batteries that can easily be turned up and down to meet peak demand.

I still fail to see a logical argument why you would want to prevent government from using clean and cheap electricity.

 

[MTM98290]

Calling CO2 plant food is simply irrelevant to the problem global warming due to massive amounts of greenhouse gases we pump into the atmosphere, as no one is arguing to remove CO2 from the atmosphere to pre-industrial levels. So what is the purpose of describing CO2 as plant food, if not an attempt to obfuscate the issue at hand? It is like arguing that water is necessary for plant growth whenever a toddler drowns.

CO2 has been proven to be necessary for photosynthesis.
CO2 has not been proven to cause climate catastrophe.

 

[svetz]

I know that you can not see it, but it is happening regardless. The 'Climate Crisis' induced by CO2 is based an appeal to authority, plain and simple.
Trust the experts, right?

Nope. Look into the data and come to your own conclusions. The science says the climate crisis is real. Your statement about
appeal to authority" doesn't even make sense to me, but if you have a reference/link to your data I'd look at it.

...They don't fund research that embarrasses them and destroy whole areas of study within the institution.

Can government's or parties be embarrassed regardless of the research results or truth? The research into climate change shows it's an urgent crisis and that governments are doing so little seems like it ought to be embarrassing?

Because I won't eat bugs.
Because I want humanity to be free.

Those are technically what's called a fool's choice. E.g., To fight climate change I must eat bugs. It's just a propaganda technique to sway people to an argument. It's already been shown in prior posts that's people don't have to eat bugs to reduce climate change. In fact, none of the current plans put forth by any government I know of have their population eating bugs as a solution.

I don't have to trust the narrative, and I don't.

Agree 100%. But if your only reason is because "it's a government conspiracy" and "I haven't confirmed the science for myself", then you have no solid proof that it is a hoax either.

I'm not ignoring anything, only doubting that anthropogenic CO2 is a threat

And yet there are numerous compelling scientific theories that closely match observed data and all other reasonable explanations don't account for the changes. We know it's caused by man from several techniques, but the one people most point to is the carbon isotopes in the air. See
How we know Climate Change is Man-Made

You do understand that even if CO2 were a threat ICE vehicles don't contribute enough to worry about right? Every little bit of reduction helps. One gallon of gasoline produces 20 pounds of CO2. It's estimated we burn 376 million gallons per day. The half-life of CO2 is over a century, what you burn today builds up and stays around for a long time. Transportation accounts for 28% of the GHGs as shown to the right. Passenger cars account for 41% of that 28%.

(images are links to sources)​

...CO2 has not been proven to cause climate catastrophe....

Interesting choice of catastrophe as opposed to climate change or global warming. It's an interesting tactic to try and break the linkage between them. But what is that linkage?

CO2 (and other GHGs) have been linked to global warming. Global warming causes climate change. Climate change historically has caused crisis.
That you choose to ignore the science around global warming doesn't make your statement correct. But, there is a much higher degree of uncertainty in the IPCC reports as to the levels of the catastrophes that might occur based on climate change.

Fortunately, we don't have to rely on future predictions when the government watchdogs keep track of how much is spent of various activities. For example, the increase costs from weather events bares a startling similarity to the increase in Global warming. I'd say the $600 billion and devastation from last year counted as catastrophe:

The climate changing does indeed cost us all quite a bit.

 

[MTM98290]

Sadly people are not always responsible, even with all the regulation, the US, with about 100 deaths a day, is rated as the sixth highest motor-vehicle deaths per 100 million vehicle miles compared to other countries, according to the US national safety council web site. What do you think would happen if you abolish government regulations? Personally, I would like you to try to end government regulation, it would be interesting to see how an advanced society like the US improved or declined when all regulations were ended. (Just don't ask me to participate as I have seen first hand how people elsewhere in the world act when there is little to no government regulations)

Probably wouldn't end well. We don't have to have NO government to have less government. Of course each responsible individual should be self governing, we must have a civilization to maintain humanity

When the government building uses electricity from solar on the building it doesn't have to buy it elsewhere, if they can sell the excess good for them. I have no problem with that, I even encourage that as it saves tax money, that money can be returned in lowering taxes, used for paying of the debt, or on something else, I will leave that up to the voters. As for the dams, I hear your lakes are drying up, with lake mead down nearly 50 meters, even if they weren't those lakes function as huge batteries that can easily be turned up and down to meet peak demand.

I still fail to see a logical argument why you would want to prevent government from using clean and cheap electricity.

if it were actually cheaper, as I said before. I am doubtful that these sorts of projects would be the first government run interference into the private sector that weren't corrupt? The concept may be possible in many situations, but it can not be given a green light across the board.

 

[Bongbong]

CO2 has been proven to be necessary for photosynthesis.
CO2 has not been proven to cause climate catastrophe.

My observation was about the use of the term plant food, we are not discussing plant food, we are discussing man made global warming and what we can do about it, not gardening...

As for the level of prove you need, I am puzzled. Call me foolish, but when 98% of the structural engineers tell me that the railway bridge I am heading towards won't hold the train that I am in with the rest of humanity, I don't stay on that train and ask the driver to accelerate. Nor am I going to wait for the level of prove that the naysayers require, (the train going over the bridge and it collapsing) I would pull the emergency brake.

We don't even have to pull the emergency brake, solar and wind are already cheaper than fossil fuels, all we need to do is implement those alternative energy sources, the worst that can happen is that our cities are cleaner and quieter. The breakthrough Svetz was asking about is already here.

 

[svetz]

Migration from climate change
Opinion: Interesting study of a microcosm. Not to unexpected, people won't move...until they have to. New to me was the length of time it takes for a community to relocate. There's been a few weather related disasters with deaths in the news and people are angry at the government. Is it really the government's fault if you elect leaders that won't do anything it? I suppose it's a bit like the fossil fuel companies, I don't want them to be blamed for us consuming fossil fuels, but I do want them blamed for their PR campaign to deceive the public and delay change.

Trump seeks $1 billion from oil CEOs, vows to limit EVs
Opinion: You just can't make this stuff up. A candidate telling companies his vote is for sale. Does that make him an honest politician?

The Climate-Changed Child: A Children's Climate Risk Index Supplement
One billion children at ‘extremely high risk’ of the impacts of the climate crisis
Opinion: I don't generally post links like this, but given how worried people are about children's health from things like cobalt mining, thought maybe they might need to become aware of the other side of the coin.

Poll Shows Climate Change Dwarfed by Economy, Inflation in Voters' Minds
Opinion: Climate change affects the economy and therefore inflation. Oh well.

Environmental Changes Are Fueling Human, Animal and Plant Diseases, Study Finds

Oil Companies Expand Offshore Drilling, Pointing to Energy Needs

MILES OF ICE COLLAPSING INTO THE SEA
Opinion: Old, but cool

 

[Bongbong]

Probably wouldn't end well. We don't have to have NO government to have less government. Of course each responsible individual should be self governing, we must have a civilization to maintain humanity

if it were actually cheaper, as I said before. I am doubtful that these sorts of projects would be the first government run interference into the private sector that weren't corrupt? The concept may be possible in many situations, but it can not be given a green light across the board.

Corruption is a separate issue, I can't stand it myself either, regardless of the political ideology the pundits might espouse.

As Svetz pointed out, Lazard asserted that solar, even with battery backup is already cheaper. Since then solar battery collapsed, it doesn't take a dgree in econics to understand that the energy mix will change regardless of political ideals and it would be short-sighted to forbid government from implementing those savings.

 

[MTM98290]

Nope. Look into the data and come to your own conclusions. The science says the climate crisis is real. Your statement about
appeal to authority" doesn't even make sense to me, but if you have a reference/link to your data I'd look at it.


Can government's or parties be embarrassed regardless of the research results or truth? The research into climate change shows it's an urgent crisis and that governments are doing so little seems like it ought to be embarrassing?

Are they embarrassed about the behavior that I have mentioned previously? The parts that aren't addressed here?

Those are technically what's called a fool's choice. E.g., To fight climate change I must eat bugs. It's just a propaganda technique to sway people to an argument. It's already been shown in prior posts that's people don't have to eat bugs to reduce climate change. In fact, none of the current plans put forth by any government I know of have their population eating bugs as a solution.

Har dee har har! Fools choice! That thar is mee.
I don't need to eat bugs. The World Economic Forum sure likes to promote it. Bugs are in food now.
I am thankful that I am not being fooled into believing that these narratives aren't being promoted by those who would benefit

Agree 100%. But if your only reason is because "it's a government conspiracy" and "I haven't confirmed the science for myself", then you have no solid proof that it is a hoax either.

I laid out many reasons beyond the recognition of conspiracy.

I am not making the claim that would warrant me to disprove said claim.

Huckster: "If you don't wear a mint green top hat during every new moon you will be cursed life" "Only one thousand dollars for you peace of mind, good sir!"

Passerby: "I don't believe that, I don't need that hat!"

Huckster: "You must prove that you will not be cursed!"

Passerby: "Ok, I will continue on my way without your hat, and I will prove that there is no curse."

Huckster: "Are you some sort of denier? That is fine, the government is going to mandate the mint green top hat as mandatory, weather you like it or not!

And yet there are numerous compelling scientific theories that closely match observed data and all other reasonable explanations don't account for the changes. We know it's caused by man from several techniques, but the one people most point to is the carbon isotopes in the air. See
How we know Climate Change is Man-Made

Every little bit of reduction helps. One gallon of gasoline produces 20 pounds of CO2. It's estimated we burn 376 million gallons per day. The half-life of CO2 is over a century, what you burn today builds up and stays around for a long time. Transportation accounts for 28% of the GHGs as shown to the right. Passenger cars account for 41% of that 28%.

(images are links to sources)​

Interesting choice of catastrophe as opposed to climate change or global warming. It's an interesting tactic to try and break the linkage between them. But what is that linkage?

No tactic. It is also interesting that you didn't include the other failed narratives such as cool down, sea level rise, I guess because the version that we have settled on is the asinine "Climate Change." Climate changes, nobody denies that.

You are claiming that there is a need to make changes for the sake of that changing climate. The burden of proof is not on my position, but on yours.

CO2 (and other GHGs) have been linked to global warming. Global warming causes climate change. Climate change historically has caused crisis.
That you choose to ignore the science around global warming doesn't make your statement correct. But, there is a much higher degree of uncertainty in the IPCC reports as to the levels of the catastrophes that might occur based on climate change.

Fortunately, we don't have to rely on future predictions when the government watchdogs keep track of how much is spent of various activities. For example, the increase costs from weather events bares a startling similarity to the increase in Global warming. I'd say the $600 billion and devastation from last year counted as catastrophe:

The climate changing does indeed cost us all quite a bit.

If there are more things in the path of a storm and those things cost more every year to acquire and produce, would it not be reasonable to assume that much of the rising cost here can be attributed to that fact?

 

[MTM98290]

Corruption is a separate issue, I can't stand it myself either, regardless of the political ideology the pundits might espouse.

Agreed.

As Svetz pointed out, Lazard asserted that solar, even with battery backup is already cheaper. Since then solar battery collapsed, it doesn't take a dgree in econics to understand that the energy mix will change regardless of political ideals and it would be short-sighted to forbid government from implementing those savings.

ONLY If it makes actual sense beyond financial shell games. If it is economically viable then why wouldn't the power companies already have more renewable energy sources on line, without being incentivized?