I said $0. I am not convinced we can make a difference.
Poll: How much of your own money would you be willing to personally spend each month to reduce the impact of climate change?
- Thread starter jderimig
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
- Status
Thirsty and maybe others made good points to the effect we are already paying into this, though sometimes the return is greater than the price already.
Good example is regular lightbulbs. Some years ago the govt mandated a switch from oldstyle incandescent energy hog bulbs for most applications. I didn't like paying $10-15 for an LED bulb instead of $0.50 for an incandescent one then. But my tune changed when I did the math and saw a drop in my electric bill, and rarely had to change some bulbs that needed ladders to get to, instead of every few months changing them out. Rates of infant mortality of these new bulbs has dropped. They are a great value now. And they cost less than $2 now...
Good example is regular lightbulbs. Some years ago the govt mandated a switch from oldstyle incandescent energy hog bulbs for most applications. I didn't like paying $10-15 for an LED bulb instead of $0.50 for an incandescent one then. But my tune changed when I did the math and saw a drop in my electric bill, and rarely had to change some bulbs that needed ladders to get to, instead of every few months changing them out. Rates of infant mortality of these new bulbs has dropped. They are a great value now. And they cost less than $2 now...
Last edited:
Zero, not one red cent.
I do not voluntarily participate in Ponzi schemes and other financial scams where I would be a bag holder.
I do not voluntarily participate in Ponzi schemes and other financial scams where I would be a bag holder.
ThirstyBarbarian
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
- Messages
- 12,249
- Reaction score
- 7,486
If you accept that you are in some part responsible for something due to your own actions, then you should be able to understand you can make a difference by changing what you are doing.
Now, not everyone believes they bear some responsibility for what is undeniably happening, so if that’s the case, they might think they can’t make a difference. But how climate change works is not so much something you “believe” as it’s something you understand. Not everyone understands it, or maybe they choose to ignore the truth for whatever reason.
But it’s not that hard to understand. They told us more than 30 years ago how it works, and they told is in general terms how it would play out. Every year confirms it’s happening exactly how they said it would. And once you understand the basic mechanism, it’s obvious each person can take steps to minimize their own responsibility for what’s happening.
Annnnnnnddd clicking "Unwatch"
I believe the word in use among climate scientists is “anthropogenic”, which is built from some pretty recognizable root words.
In order to answer the poll, I’d need three numbers:
1.). The estimated cost to stop and reverse anthropogenic climate change back to the pre-industrial period over a specified amount of time.
2.). My monthly share of that cost, split evenly among Earth’s current and projected future human inhabitants
3.). That share further adjusted to account for others paying more or less than their fair share. My guess is that most people pay far less, either because they’re rich and just won’t or because they’re poor and just can’t.
I’d then have to do the math and figure out whether or not I can actually afford that resulting figure. If not, I’d pay what I could and then make some political noise to try to get the remaining balance offloaded to those who can best afford it, or to the most prolific polluters.
Edit: The Wall Street Journal reports that one estimated cost to meet the Paris agreement targets is $131 trillion between now and 2050.
https://www.wsj.com/video/series/ws...e-answer/7CDC8900-9FF0-4DF6-BD69-25A5FF5B02B5
Divided by 8 billion, the estimated global population, spits out $16,375. Divided by 28 years is $584.82 per person, annually. Divided by 12 months per year is $48.73.
Obviously not everybody can cough up $48.73 every month for 28 years, certainly not in the developing world, in the growing class of the working poor, children, or economically marginalized people. I could probably devote it but I’d have no idea what the adjusted total in 3.) would work out to. Not to mention that that estimated $131 trillion cost could be inaccurate, or could rise with continued inaction.
Last edited:
Igotnothing
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2014
- Messages
- 1,002
- Reaction score
- 210
The "woman-caused climate change" joke wouldn't have worked any less well, apparently, if I had used “anthropogenic”. I'll keep my day job.
If you can convince 1.4 million residents of China, 1.3 residents of India, and 1.2 billion residents of Africa, then I will consider it.
beeblebrox
8 C6-0, 12 D11-9, 20 D20-0, 20 E5-0, 3 Cinerocs
...And speaking of Bag Holders... you can't even get a bag at grocery stores in NY state...
beeblebrox
8 C6-0, 12 D11-9, 20 D20-0, 20 E5-0, 3 Cinerocs
Big ZERO... I recently read a report that stated that if by an act of magic, the entire pollution output of the USA was reduced to zero instantly, it would have an effect of less than 0.01°C change in the earths global temperature. And, NASA data showed that the southern hemisphere temp dropped a small amount in recent years. It has also been reported that the last fifty years have had noticeably fewer large hurricanes than the previous fifty years. They seem worse due to the increasing population being effected by them.
I agree and disagree with your points.
- LED bulbs. I was an early adopter when they were really expensive so I doubt I have recouped that initial cost in any kind of energy savings. I did it because I'm selfish and lazy and got tired of changing bulbs. I'm still trying to use up the 20 I bought way back in the day but they just never burn out
I do feel better I'm not tossing bulbs in a landfill.- Water heater and furnace. Replaced the water heater as it started leaking. Wasn't terribly expensive but there wasn't any reduction is energy cost following the installation. Did the furnace a few months later as mine was more than 30yrs old and the heating company I use had one of those 0% finance deals for 12 months going so we figured we'd do it. Total cost for the two was around $7K for both. Watching the gas bills afterward, there was never a reduction over previous months so that money will never get recouped but again, I did it because like heat and hot water
- Electric or Hybrid cars. The costs of Hybrids are coming down quickly so they are making more sense now than just a few years back. My buddy bought a a brand new Camry Hybrid back in 2015. Cost was $33K. In real world driving he gets around 40mpg. Around the same time I picked up a Camry SE non-hybrid. Paid $23K for mine and I average a real world mileage around 30mpg. Cars have basically the same creature comforts and features so they are comparable. Doing the math it there was a $10K difference in price and we used the $5.00 per gallon price that was the national average here a few months back and found that the difference in fuel cost to be around $500 a year based on 12500 miles. With those numbers it would take him 20 yrs to see a savings over buying a a non-hybrid. If you redo the math at todays lower gas prices ($3.09) that time jumps to 31 yrs.
As for pure electrics. Weather they are cheaper to own come down to a model by model bases. Read an interesting article from Car and Driver recently on the cost of owning a Kona gas vs electric and the gas was cheaper. They went on to compare an F150 gas vs F150 Lightning where the electric was cheaper. For me electric cars are a novelty and I can't see myself ever spending money on one as they jut don't fit my lifestyle. I just simply drive too darn much.
Edit: One last thought. I was quoted to put solar on my roof by two different companies when I first bought this house back in 2015. The lower of the two bids was $60K. They offered to finance it over 10 yrs. which broke down to around $6200 a year or $515ish a month. Hard to justify when I my electric bill has never exceeded $100 per month.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2021
- Messages
- 357
- Reaction score
- 205
Anyone notice that the climate conversation in the 1920's was that the earth was heating up... in the 1970's the earth was going into an ice age... then it flipped again back to global warming .... then when they got called out on it the whole thing was renamed to "Climate Change". Yet I have not seen any "climate models" include the cycles of the Sun. Anyone out there believe that the energy from the Sun is a fixed constant ?????
Exactly. They have no clue but where ever there is a way to get you to give up just a little bit more of your money they are going to take advantage.
firemanup
Well-Known Member
I mean next thing you know they will be trying to kill all the first born children of a nation… pure evil
astronwolf
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2012
- Messages
- 565
- Reaction score
- 283
This one does indulge in an emotional need to talk down to people. Must feel real good to be always right. I might jump on board just so I can be right all the time too.
Can’t be right all the time, or even most of the time, if you don’t have a handle on the facts. That takes a fair amount of work, not just attitude.
I find the question, as asked, to be unanswerable.
Would I spend $10k to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle? Yes. Although you still might object to me driving a pickup truck, it is a measurable improvement over the older SUV it replaced.
Would I choose to buy local rather than food from out of state? Yes.
Would I use clothing until it wears out instead of following fads, trends, or style (since textiles represent an enormous percentage of international fuel consumption and carbon emissions)? Again yes, but mostly because I was raised by Depression survivors and that seems normal to me.
But would I pay an extra $50 per month on a utility bill earmarked for some vague climate change program?
Hell no.
Would I spend $10k to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle? Yes. Although you still might object to me driving a pickup truck, it is a measurable improvement over the older SUV it replaced.
Would I choose to buy local rather than food from out of state? Yes.
Would I use clothing until it wears out instead of following fads, trends, or style (since textiles represent an enormous percentage of international fuel consumption and carbon emissions)? Again yes, but mostly because I was raised by Depression survivors and that seems normal to me.
But would I pay an extra $50 per month on a utility bill earmarked for some vague climate change program?
Hell no.
I'd pay my fair share.
For the deniers out there, scroll down and read the whole thing:
https://xkcd.com/1732/
For the deniers out there, scroll down and read the whole thing:
https://xkcd.com/1732/
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 2,127
- Reaction score
- 911
I wouldn't pay anything .as it has already been shown , even if all humans died tomorrow, it will take the earth nearly 1000 years to slow to slow the decay and start improving .
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2009
- Messages
- 1,778
- Reaction score
- 1,481
In my opinion, as we know it now, the issue of "climate change" is a hoax. That is not to say that the climate is not changing and that people aren't having/had some impact on the climate but that the whole issue right now is about resource redistribution. Get away from the "how much $$ will it take" and look at the science seriously, then the issue will move forward. As it stands now, it's about giving someone else our money.
Last edited:
KC3KNM
Probably Wrong
I have no aspersions in believing that I'm going to change anybody's mind, especially once it's set, but unless you believe that NASA is engaging in "junk science" then this is worth a read. CAUTION: only for people with an open mind:
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/BTW, NASA seems to be achieving rather remarkable accomplishments with their "junk science" lately.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/BTW, NASA seems to be achieving rather remarkable accomplishments with their "junk science" lately.
I have always thought that although clever, the XKCD timeline is too short-sighted. You need to go back further than 20k years to see the cycles.
Let's look at another graph:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
I suspect we are getting milked of money because of noise on a geological timescale.
How about 800,000 years?
Clearly CO2 levels are rising beyond what can be attributed to a natural cycle.
Source: NASA (post #56)
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2009
- Messages
- 6,002
- Reaction score
- 4,118
CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas over 400ppm and not dangerous in any way. That is obvious after the almost 50% increase of CO2 estimated since 1850, that has coincided with only good news, from the greening of our planet to amazing prosperity from the use of hydrocarbon fuels. ... In fact, our planet would benefit from much higher CO2 levels. C3 photosynthesis plants used for food prefer 750 ppm to 1,500 ppm CO2 for optimum growth rates. Ask any greenhouse owner or read some of the over 3,000 scientific studies with the same conclusion. Optimum growth rates of C3 plants will support the most human and animal life possible on our planet. CO2 is the staff of life for our planet, and the current level of CO2 is low relative to estimated range in the past 4 billion years ( from 0.0180%, about 20,000 years ago, to about 25%, wild guessed for 4 billion years ago)
- Status
