TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Global Warming: Make me an offer...

The theory of man made global climate change says that human co2 emissions, in fact, are a massive and immediate threat to the earth. This theory has been taken as token fact even though temperature models that formed the theory are now almost two decades into inaccurate projections of temperatures thought to have rapidly risen by now, but have actually been stable since the year 2000.

Pretend I'm a high ranking government official and answer this for me as though you were a policy analyst:

Is it logical for governments to enact policy that is detrimental to fossil fuel industries, global economies, and the families of those workers who are literally put out of work by the government based off of the increasingly unfounded and hotly scientifically contested theory of man-made global climate change?

Keep in mind these factors:
Renewable energy does not have a cheap and efficient answer currently.

As we've seen with the Stimulus Package- government subsidized "green" start-ups end in bankruptcy.

The country is in the midst of an economic crisis.

Fossil fuel is the most cost effective and profitable energy source.

Fear is a powerful tool for politicians and businessmen alike.

Have fun kiddos!


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Aug 16 2013: Daniel Stefan,

    In the book the Jungle Upton Sinclair said it is very hard to convince someone of something if they are being paid to believe something else. There is a fortune being paid for people not to believe that burning fossil fuel is destroying the climate of the Earth for man. Also, those who are being paid the most are also the most influential and powerful at the moment. As a result there is only one way that this will all play out. There is going to be a catastrophic crash in the stock market. It is that crash that will put a stop to burning most of the fossil fuel. Following this crash there will be a play for the middle East oil reserves as that will be the only stop gap survival strategy that China, Russia or the US can figure out. Besides, having the soldiers die in battle will be a second way the government leaders can solve the problem of economic collapse (a win win solution for them, get the people who would revolt out of the country, if they seize the reserves, great, if they die, also great). However, Europe is moving away from dependence on fossil fuel so they may try some kind of draconian style economic control, but it will be very bleak for them with the collapse of the global economy.

    However, the good news is that Economic collapse and world war is also usually associated with pandemics. Since the problem of climate change is a result of the world's economy burning fossil fuel, and also can be measured on a per capita basis an extreme collapse of the world's economy along with a drastic drop in the world's population is exactly the remedy that is called for. As a result we will see a dramatic and virtually overnight drop in the consumption of fossil fuel. This should signal the beginning of a new age of restoration in which the Earth moves towards homeostasis. This could take as little as 1,000 years if the nuclear reactors can be shut down safely.
    • thumb
      Aug 16 2013: Is any money being spent in an effort to convince the undecided people that GWCC is not a trumped-up politically motivated non-issue? You make it sound as though only the opponents of GWCC are promoting their agenda. I know Al Gore has made millions from the issue so there must be a money trail there somewhere.
      • Aug 16 2013: The world has been consuming more than 70 million barrels of oil per day since 1995, if you use $100 a barrel as a nice round number, the world is spending $7 billion a day on oil (natural gas and coal are other expenses you could add to that). When you see a car commercial what you are really seeing is an advertisement for oil (or in the case of electric vehicles for coal). Whenever you buy an electric appliance you are buying coal. I think it is safe to say the world is spending more than $10 billion per day on fossil fuel consumption or items that run on fossil fuel. So then, over the course of a year it is about $3-4 trillion as a very conservative estimate. $3-4 million spent on raising awareness about climate change is 0.0001% of the money being spent on fossil fuel promotion. So 99.9999% of the money is spent promoting a "fossil fuel" lifestyle and 0.0001% is spent warning of the dangers of this lifestyle.
        • Aug 17 2013: Actually, its pretty much opposite. Its the "green" folk making the real killing off the issue.

          For a start, look at all the money being poured into green projects by government. You could have produced a hundred times the electric output using fossil fuels or nuclear with the same investment, but they chose to go green instead, and the money got invested in different hands.
          Second, politicians being elected on a green agenda. You can't put "I won't change a thing about our energy infrastructure because its doing fine" on your campaign.
          Third, the media loves a sensationalist story. "Nothing new under the sun" doesn't have quite the same appeal as "global warming threatening to kill us all".
          Finally, the climatologists themselves; they wouldn't be getting a tenth of the budget they have today if it wasn't for the whole global warming scare. Same argument as media, except replace "sensationalist story" with "sensationalist research". Negative results=people calming down and slashing the budget now that its no longer scary.

          In fact, without the whole global warming scare, we wouldn't even be touching renewable energy. Its just that bad. Wind and solar are a full two orders of magnitude behind coal in terms of cost per energy unit.
          Battery technology today is poor enough to render electric cars and aircraft impractical, and biodiesel compromises your food supply, meaning that there's no getting away from burning oil for engines in the foreseeable future.

          We're not using fossil fuels because the big oil companies bought us all. We're using them because they're the best option for any country that didn't strike lucky on geothermal or hydroelectric (both at the mercy of geography), and can't produce nuclear power due to political reasons (looks too much like a weapons program).
          Finally, developing countries would go bankrupt trying for green while still maintaining development--you can't ask them to do that.
        • thumb
          Aug 18 2013: Apples and oranges.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.