[Godstud]

No, but if you want to run away. I'll leave you to it. I prefer dealing with people who deal in facts, not fictions.

[Steve_American]

You [that is me, Steve_American] seem to be implying that it's up to me. It's not. I'm not for gambling, either, and I'm for everything we can possibly do to prevent AGW. I am, however, realistic about the chances of that happening NOW.

We have people, like Trump, who are moving AGAINST the trend to improve the environment to stop AGW, and even working to sabotage it.

All that is so nice to know.
What would be so much nicer to know is --- that you agree that creating cash is a great idea to solve the problem of who is going to pay for it, i.e. no one or everyone.
Remember that MMT says that the idea that the US Gov. is exactly like a family is totally wrong. That the US can spend dollars that it just creates as long as there is *not* real full employment *without* creating any or much inflation. So, it is a gamble to try this, but the worst case result is far less damaging and there is some chance there is no downside (only the 2 upsides of saving humanity and hiring people who need jobs).
Can you agree with me that after Trump is gone we should try this idea?

[SolarCross]

[Steve_American]

It has been a day or 2.
So, not Godstud or anyone else can agree that it is better to risk inflation than extinction.

Go figure.!!

It is said, "There is nothing so powerful as an idea who's time has come."
History shows this is often true, i.e. that nobody needs to push such an idea; if its time has come it just takes off all on its own. Some examples: the rise of capitalism on the ashes of feudalism, the industrial rev., the auto rev., and the computer rev. We need to save humanity, MMT is the idea who's time has come at this time in history.

I'll be dead soon and I have no children (although my wife does from her 1st marriage),
so it will not effect me at all.
And I will not know how it turns out, either.

I hope you-all live long enough to repent this decision of yours.

[Godstud]

So, not Godstud or anyone else can agree that it is better to risk inflation than extinction.

I am not saying that all, you liar. I am ignoring your childish inflation argument, as it's incompetent. You have not identified HOW to spend these trillions of dollars. You only say TO spend it.

On what, genius?

Nuclear energy would be a good thing to spend it on, and would see immediate results in burning less oil and coal to fuel electrical powerplants.

I hope you-all live long enough to repent this decision of yours.

Could you possibly be any more sanctimonious? What are you fucking doing about AGW, Your Holiness?

[Steve_American]

Godstud, I think you misread my last post.
I said you did not agree with me.
It sounds like you said I said that you finally agree with me.
Sorry I rubbed you the wrong way.
And we were finally agreeing about the need to do a lot.
BTW I did say one thing we could do to spend a lot of money to help fight AGW. Blanket the Arctic Ocean with clouds and fog in summer to keep the sun's heat out of the water.

[Godstud]

No, I am not even considering your argument about a deficit, because I don't think it's relevant. I don't like you assuming that because I don't consider your argument relevant, that I am for, or against it. I simply do not think it's relevant.

Blanketing the arctic, and other similar ideas are mere drops of water in the ocean. The amount you'd have to spend, nevermind the massive manpower needed to do so, would make it simply not feasible on realistic scale.We're not talking a few hundred square miles here, are we?

Making man stop using coal and oil as energy sources would be a far more realistic, and fiscally possible idea than these dreams.

[Steve_American]

No, I am not even considering your argument about a deficit, because I don't think it's relevant. I don't like you assuming that because I don't consider your argument relevant, that I am for, or against it. I simply do not think it's relevant.

Blanketing the arctic, and other similar ideas are mere drops of water in the ocean. The amount you'd have to spend, nevermind the massive manpower needed to do so, would make it simply not feasible on realistic scale.We're not talking a few hundred square miles here, are we?

Making man stop using coal and oil as energy sources would be a far more realistic, and fiscally possible idea than these dreams.

You said that I hadlied about yur opinion. I thought I told the truth. I.e., humanity needs to address AGW but youcan't say you lik my idea for how to pay for it. That is what you said, right?

As to stopping the use of fossil fuels and using nuclear instead. 1] The nuclear cooling towers use a lot of concrete and concrete needs a lot of natural gas to cook the portland cement powder, and some day the plants will need to be decommissioned and totally replaced. 2] Stopping using oil and coal are good ideas, but they are not enough. 3] We need to not let the Arctic Ocean melt the CH$, this is critical to avoid the reasonable worst case from happening.

[Godstud]

The nuclear cooling towers use a lot of concrete and concrete needs a lot of natural gas to cook the portland cement powder, and some day the plants will need to be decommissioned and totally replaced.

The newer plants are expected to last 80+years.

How Long Can a Nuclear Reactor Last?
Industry experts argue old reactors could last another 50 years, or more.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... lacement-/

We need to not let the Arctic Ocean melt the CH$, this is critical to avoid the reasonable worst case from happening.

I already demonstrated that this was neither realistic, nor feasible, and the threat from methane is over-blown/exaggerated.

[Steve_American]

The newer plants are expected to last 80+years.

How Long Can a Nuclear Reactor Last?
Industry experts argue old reactors could last another 50 years, or more.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... lacement-/

Steve_American wrote:
"We need to not let the Arctic Ocean melt the CH$, this is critical to avoid the reasonable worst case from happening."

I already demonstrated that this was neither realistic, nor feasible, and the threat from methane is over-blown/exaggerated.

Godstud, I looked back thru the last 2 pages and I didn't see where you even asserted that the threat is overblown until here. And you didn't demonstrate that it is not possible to fog over the Arctic Ocean, you just asserted it with zero supporting numbers or other facts.
I totally understand that there is no proof that it will happen.
It just seems certain that there is *some chance* that it will happen. How much chance is very hard to quantify. And the gut feelings of uninformed laymen are especially useless and well informed laymen just a little better than that. The gut feelings of climate scientists would be much more on the mark if you could get 500 random CS to tell you their gut feeling on the record.

You blow it off. And then complain that I'm being a scare monger. Time will tell. But, not in my lifetime.

[Godstud]

And you didn't demonstrate that it is not possible to fog over the Arctic Ocean, you just asserted it with zero supporting numbers or other facts.

Much like your assertion that it can be done? You made the claim that it could. Support it, please. I'm willing to read any sources that show it's both economically feasible and will be actually effective.

I totally understand that there is no proof that it will happen.

That's the crux of most arguments.

You blow it off.

I am not blowing it off. I am looking for realistic methods to deal with it, and not idealistic fantasies. I am a pragmatist.

And then complain that I'm being a scare monger.

The problem is, is that you, and others who try to motivate people thru fear of what could happen, aren't helping the problem. Fear sometimes motivates, but sometimes it removes hope, as well, or even discourages. This is especially the case when some people say it's already too late.

'Well, if it's too late, what's the point in even trying?' - common citizen.

Do you understand what I am saying?

[Steve_American]

I will add numbers to your paragraphs so we know what I'm replying to, OK?

1] Much like your assertion that it can be done? You made the claim that it could. Support it, please. I'm willing to read any sources that show it's both economically feasible and will be actually effective.

2] That's the crux of most arguments.

3] I am not blowing it off. I am looking for realistic methods to deal with it, and not idealistic fantasies. I am a pragmatist.

4] The problem is, is that you, and others who try to motivate people thru fear of what could happen, aren't helping the problem. Fear sometimes motivates, but sometimes it removes hope, as well, or even discourages. This is especially the case when some people say it's already too late.

5] 'Well, if it's too late, what's the point in even trying?' - common citizen.

6] Do you understand what I am saying?

In #1 --- As I remember the exchange, you asked me to supply you with one way that the US or world could use massive amounts of cash to address my concerns. I replied with the idea that we could blanket the Arctic Ocean with clouds or fog to keep the sun from shining on it during the summer. I didn't say that it would work or we could afford to do enough to make a difference. You just assumed I said that. However, you just asked for one idea, you didn't ask for an idea that I [as a layman living in S.E. Asia now] can prove will work. At least I didn't understand your request to be that demanding.
. . . Now you assert that you have proven that the idea is not practical until I call you on that claim and then you assert you have equal right to discount the idea as I have in putting it out there. Now I assert that I never said it was practical, I was just brain storming.

In #3 --- You have said that you are ignoring the whole point of this thread, [I guess] because you disagree with the economics. But, you have not said how you are going to pay for a massive program. Until, you can fund it the program is not going to start and until it starts it is not going to save civilization. I at least have a plan to pay for it. You appear to not have a plan, yet.

#6 --- Yes.

#4 --- So far the people have not gotten motivated to demand action. We have a couple of AGW deniers on this site trying to keep people from demanding action by using BS arguments. We need to do more to motivate the people. We need to do WHATEVER IT TAKES.

#5 --- Well, that is a risk. I'm not an expert on motivating humans. To me [however] as long as I'm alive there is hope "that I will get past this problem to better days ahead". Hope is the key for me. Do nothing and there is no hope, none. The more we do the more hope there is. So far, we are not doing much of anything. ISTM.

[Godstud]

I've exceptional experience in motivating people, and you can only get so far with fear. After a time, people become jaded, and it's no longer a motivating factor. That is what is happening with people from the constant barrage of AGW "the end is nigh" people.

[blackjack21]

[Steve_American]

No, I am not even considering your argument about a deficit, because I don't think it's relevant. I don't like you assuming that because I don't consider your argument relevant, that I am for, or against it. I simply do not think it's relevant.

Blanketing the arctic, and other similar ideas are mere drops of water in the ocean. The amount you'd have to spend, nevermind the massive manpower needed to do so, would make it simply not feasible on realistic scale. We're not talking a few hundred square miles here, are we?

Making man stop using coal and oil as energy sources would be a far more realistic, and fiscally possible idea than these dreams.

In another thread you are ignoring the we can do this if we change our economic thinking idea because you think it is off topic.

Well, it is my thread and I put both elements in the OP. I.e., methane releases from the Arctic [land and sea] and a way to pay for the programs necessary to avoid that release were both in the OP.
I think that I get to decide what is on topic in my thread.
In Congress every discussion comes down to 2 elements. They are: 1] Is this a good idea? And 2] How will we pay for it?
You blew off 1 of the key elements of all such discussions. How to pay for it.
By doing that you missed the whole point.

And to the point --- is fogging the Arctic practical? I do not think it is up to me to prove, show, or even demonstrate that it is doable. You just asked for an idea of how we *could* spend massive amounts of dollars to fight methane releases. Why do you think you win if this layman can't prove it will work? Besides you just don't accept the premise that huge methane releases are more than a tiny possibility. You seem to think they are a tiny possibility. So, tiny as to ignorable.

[Godstud]

I do not think it is up to me to prove, show, or even demonstrate that it is doable.

Then don't expect anyone to take you seriously, then. I consider it a pipe dream as logical as turning on more air conditioners to combat AGW.

Besides you just don't accept the premise that huge methane releases are more than a tiny possibility. You seem to think they are a tiny possibility. So, tiny as to ignorable.

I gave you a source showing that methane isn't the colossal threat that you make it out to be, and you ignored it.

While methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, there is over 200 times more CO2 in the atmosphere. Hence the amount of warming methane contributes is 28% of the warming CO2 contributes.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/methan ... arming.htm

Sorry, if I think that any things done to combat AGW have to be economically feasible, or no one will do them. I think that's just being obvious.

[Steve_American]

#1 Then don't expect anyone to take you seriously, then. I consider it (i.e. fogging the whole Arctic Ocean) a pipe dream as logical as turning on more air conditioners to combat AGW.

#2 I gave you a source showing that methane isn't the colossal threat that you make it out to be, and you ignored it.

#3 While methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, there is over 200 times more CO2 in the atmosphere. Hence the amount of warming methane contributes is 28% of the warming CO2 contributes.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/methan ... arming.htm

#4 Sorry, if I think that any things done to combat AGW have to be economically feasible, or no one will do them. I think that's just being obvious.

#1 --- I guess we will have to just disagree. However, why would anyone take you seriously when twice in a row you posted articles about current conditions to refute claims about what could happen in the future.

#2 --- Godstud, just like the source below the source you gave before was all about how much methane is in the air now [i.e. in 2010]. Not *one* word of it was about how *more* methane would enter the air in the future. Your sentence in #2 uses the word "threat". A threat is always about the future. So, you claim is about the future but your link is only about now [=2010, I got this date from the dates on the comments].
. . . . I didn't ignore your post. I replied with reasons why it was wrong to just look at how much CH4 is in the air now, and you ignored my reply. You seem to insist that evidence that it is not much of a problem now is proof that it can not become a problem later no matter what happens.

#3 --- These numbers imply that CH4 is about 60 times worse than CO2. Other sources say 100 times worse.
[showing my work, using my engineering schooling]
If X is how much worse CH4 is [I calculated it at 60 times], then ---
1/200+ times X = 28% of what CO2 does now.
X = .28 times 200+
X = more than 58 which is about 60.
But, again, the article you linked here says not *one word* about how much CH4 will enter the air over the next 20 years.
And, the article was written is 2010 and updated in 2016. But, the graph it uses ends in 2004 [over 13 years ago]. The claim under the graph that CH4 levels have flattened in the last few years therefore is talking about 14 years ago.
Twice in a row now you have posted links about the present with not one word about the future, and claim that they show that CH4 will not be a problem in the future.

To restate my original claim --- A reasonable worst case for the future is that around 500 times more CH4 will be released into the air over the next 20 to 100 years. If it is 20 years then the break down of CH4 into CO2 and H2O can be ignored. So, CH4 is 60 times worse than CO2 and the amount in the air will be 500 times more than it is now, call this Y. Currently Y is 1/200 of CO2 now.
So, starting with the equation about now above ---1/200+ times 60 = ?? times what CO2 does now.
If --- we add 500 times more CH4 to the air then it becomes, 500 times 1/200 times 60 = ?? times what CO2 does now.
So --- 500/200 times 60 = ?? times what CO2 does now.
So --- 2.5 times 60 = ?? times what CO2 does now.
So --- 150 = ?? times what CO2 does now.
So --- ?? = 150 times what CO2 does now
So --- if 500 times more CH4 was released in a short time them the result would result in the same amount of heating
as increasing the CO2 level to 150 times more than the CO2 level is now.

Here I'm replying to you claim that a big methane release is not a big deal.
It looks like a huge deal to me.
This is a worst case scenario. It may not happen, but it could. I think it is a reasonable worst case scenario. YMMV. But, neither link you provided said one word about the chance it would happen. To me that means it is just your gut reaction with no evidence provided to support it.

#4 --- Here you talk about "economically feasible". I'm not even sure what you mean by that. I would be talking about physically feasible. That is, does the world have the physical resources to do it [i.e., the program being suggested].
OTOH, when you ignored my plan to just create the dollars to do it by borrowing or out of thin air; you ignored my response to "Is it economically feasible?" I claimed that it is economically feasible if we choose to embrace the method that MMTers say we can use to pay for it. You just ignored that "because it was off topic, but now you say it is on topic. Glad you can agree with me this much.
But then, maybe you should rethink your claim that fogging the Arctic is not "economically feasible".

There is also "politically feasible". Starting a program to stop the burning of coal and oil has and will be met by opposition from the coal and oil companies. Fogging the Arctic seems like it would not stir up as much strong opposition, i.e. we need to fight this to our dying breath opposition.
So, fogging the Arctic may be easier to do than your plan of stopping the burning of coal and oil.

[MrWonderful]

No matter what happens, humans are not going to go extinct. We are worse than cockroaches!

Speak for yourself. Leftists are constantly maligning humans and claiming there are too many of us.
How many Leftists end their own miserable lives in furtherance of their cynical claims?

[Zionist Nationalist]

No matter what happens, humans are not going to go extinct. We are worse than cockroaches!

thats true even an all out nuclear war wont extinct humanity

[Godstud]

Speak for yourself. Leftists are constantly maligning humans and claiming there are too many of us.
How many Leftists end their own miserable lives in furtherance of their cynical claims?

You wouldn't know a "leftist" if they came up and bit you on the nose.

Define "leftist", please. Is it a "Liberal"? A Communist? A Socialist? Someone who merely disagrees with you?