New York City to Sue Oil Companies for Contributing to Global Warming

[rda]

I still wonder to this day how the fuck people go through the mental gymnastics when basically everyone agrees CO2 (and others) are green house gasses, humans emit a fuck ton through energy production and use and our agricultural practices. Common sense would say most of that is probably excess when added to the natural cycle and yet they still deny they have any influence. I guess dinosaurs were flying around in private jets and burning hella coal back in the day too

There is no gymnastics. CO2 is warming the planet, yes. Humans emit CO2, yes. But the amount of warming has not been shown to be big (long talk about graphs and models and progress of research). And the analysis of the effects is laughable (so far it has been limited to the side that argues that warming is going to be catastrophic bringing illustrations of potential bad with nearly nothing in the way of discussing countermeasures that could be even potentially effective, nothing in the way of assessing their costs, and nothing on five next points which I am going to omit, because you will die out of boredom).

[Noradin]

Don't bother it's a bullshit argument from the start. The earths climate has in fact been much hotter WAAAAAAAY back in the day before humans and they'll just say "Yeah but earth survived see!!" when nobody is arguing that the planet is going to blow up due to a few degree increase.

mickybrighteyes claimed it was colder than ever observed, i never heard anyone make that outlandish claim before so I was hoping he'd link a good satirical webpage xD

[Dug]

There is no gymnastics. CO2 is warming the planet, yes. Humans emit CO2, yes. But the amount of warming has not been shown to be big (long talk about graphs and models and progress of research). And the analysis of the effects is laughable (so far it has been limited to the side that argues that warming is going to be catastrophic bringing illustrations of potential bad with nearly nothing in the way of discussing countermeasures that could be even potentially effective, nothing in the way of assessing their costs, and nothing on five next points which I am going to omit, because you will die out of boredom).

Counter measures aren't discussed, wut? They very much are but of course the problem comes about how to pay for them because they're not very cost effective and have no immediate return. Scientists aren't economists and aren't expected to be. Or rather shouldn't be expected.

[rda]

Counter measures aren't discussed, wut? They very much are but of course the problem comes about how to pay for them because they're not very cost effective and have no immediate return. Scientists aren't economists and aren't expected to be.

You say it all yourself. "They very much are" discussed, but mostly in general terms (in fact mostly as "we have to do something"). The few proposed countermeasures that have some specifics have them being woefully ineffective. That's what I said.

Added:

And you know why economists aren't discussing any of this seriously, by the way? Because science fails to show the catastrophe. Yes, really. (And no, it's not economists vs scientists, science is actually coming around to saner and saner graphs and better analysis. It will still take like twenty more years to settle though, but blatant alarmism will eventually subside.)

[rda]

/merged into above

[Dug]

You say it all yourself. "They very much are" discussed, but mostly in general terms (in fact mostly as "we have to do something"). The few proposed countermeasures that have some specifics have them being woefully ineffective. That's what I said.

They're ineffective simply because they haven't been implemented on any sort of global scale because again cost effectiveness etc etc.

[Vash The Stampede]

I hope that money they get is used to subsidized electric cars. Just makes sense in my opinion.

[rda]

They're ineffective simply because they haven't been implemented on any sort of global scale because again cost effectiveness etc etc.

No, they are ineffective right on paper. The measures that have been proposed with any specifics aim to reduce CO2 by very little - according to their own plans. It doesn't help that even then they cost an arm and a leg. Also, see my addition to #75.

[satimy]

That would be literally the dumbest thing they could do. Not only would that give further credence to the notion that corporations are, basically, evil; it also hurts their bottom line long-term as countries realize "F*ck! They could do that to us for any reason they want!", so there would be even more investment in alternative energy.

Keep in mind that solar power is now cheaper than oil in many countries already. In places like the US, both solar and oil are subsidized, but the best analysis removing the effects of subsidizing shows that solar is notably cheaper ($0.029 / kWh) than most forms of fossil fuel ($0.06 / kWh for coal; $0.05 / kWh most oil; and some small scale natural gas as low as $0.03 / kWh).

Bullshit, if solar was cheaper or viable to run a cities power supply on then one of these ultra liberal cities would already be doing it.

[Dug]

No, they are ineffective right on paper. The measures that have been proposed with any specifics aim to reduce CO2 by very little.

Well it's a bit of a run away reaction at this point. The time to "save the planet" was 30 odd years ago. At this point the only things that would have a major impact is HUGE changes to the way we produce energy and our agricultural practices.

[satimy]

Holy shit you are naive lol.

So solar is cheaper and better for the environment and the ultra rich liberal mayor of New York who is willing to sue oil companies won’t invest in it. Hmmmnmmm

[Ghostpanther]

Has to be one of the most retarded comments on this so far.

It's like telling a recovering meth addict that trying to have the cartel that sold to them dismantled and arrested is hypocritical.

Not at all. It is like Al Gore complaining about global warming and flying around in a private jet, spewing out green gas pollutants. I am sure during the big freeze that New York had, the government of New York, did not try to stay warm by not using any fossil fuels. :P

[rda]

Well it's a bit of a run away reaction at this point. The time to "save the planet" was 30 odd years ago. At this point the only things that would have a major impact is HUGE changes to the way we produce energy and our agricultural practices.

Look, you are scaring yourself for no reason here.

You are right to be talking about runaway reactions because they are actually the core of the issue. Without those runaway reactions (also called positive feedback loops), the increases in temperature due to raising CO2 levels are not scary at all - because the direct effect from increasing the concentrations is logarithmic (if the first doubling of CO2 warms by X degrees, it takes one more doubling = twice as much increase to warm by another X degrees). The entire argument regarding warming being supposedly dangerous is based on the supposed existence of positive feedback loops that somehow accelerate themselves. It's those theorized positive feedback loops that created the graphs (which were much scarier back in the day than they are now, just in case) and got attention. But after getting attention, the proponents of global warming (as well as the skeptics) have been looking for those positive feedback loops for 30 years and had very limited success overall. There were several candidates, some were shown to be dead-ends, others are "work in progress", but the long and short of it: this is where science actually came up pretty much empty. The increases in real temperatures have not been scary and they have not been showing much in the way of acceleration. There are some theories regarding the acceleration possibly coming later, but there is never a shortage of theories like that - and no, the foundations aren't too strong.

So, again, yes, there is warming and yes, it is partly created by humans. But you are just scaring yourself for no reason if you think that there is some tipping point yet alone that we are supposedly past it or are nearing it. None of this has been shown.

[Dug]

Look, you are scaring yourself for no reason here.

You are right to be talking about runaway reactions because they are actually the core of the issue. Without those runaway reactions (also called positive feedback loops), the increases in temperature due to raising CO2 levels are not scary at all - because the direct effect from increasing the concentrations is logarithmic (if the first doubling of CO2 warms by X degrees, it takes one more doubling = twice as much increase to warm by another X degrees). The entire argument regarding warming being supposedly dangerous is based on the supposed existence of positive feedback loops that somehow accelerate themselves. But the proponents of global warming (as well as the skeptics) have been looking for those positive feedback loops for 30 years and had very limited success overall. There were several candidates, some were shown to be dead-ends, others are "work in progress", but the long and short of it: this is where science actually came up pretty much empty. The increases in real temperatures have not been scary and they have not been showing much in the way of acceleration. There are some theories regarding the acceleration possibly coming later, but there is never a shortage of theories like that - and no, the foundations aren't too strong.

So, again, yes, there is warming and yes, it is partly created by humans. But you are just scaring yourself for no reason if you think that there is some tipping point yet alone that we are supposedly past it or are nearing it. None of this has been shown.

I'm really not in the camp of fear mongers so if that's what you get from my posts I'd like to just clear that up. Basically my whole motive is just a cleaner and healthier environment period. Moving away from traditional energy sources is one way to do that. I believe change in that field is coming and its going to be gradual and what effects of climate change we will see will not really present themselves fully for a couple of more decades at the least but I'd rather start now rather than later I guess.

[rda]

I'm really not in the camp of fear mongers so if that's what you get from my posts I'd like to just clear that up. Basically my whole motive is just a cleaner and healthier environment period. Moving away from traditional energy sources is one way to do that. I believe change in that field is coming and its going to be gradual and what effects of climate change we will see will not really present themselves fully for a couple of more decades at the least but I'd rather start now rather than later I guess.

Understood. I am not against cleaner and healthier environment at all (of course, I am for it). And I agree we should get away from fossil fuel, but not so much because of CO2, but rather because it could become progressively more expensive, we need something "more infinite". I think the best type of energy right now is nuclear. It is just that this particular global warming thing is much louder than it should be and it detracts resources from what actually makes sense to do towards fighting windmills. (I am also not thinking much of solar / wind, but these areas at least show *some* progress.)

[Logwyn]

If I were CEO of one of these oil companies, I would immediately cease and desist with all shipment and sales of any oil-based products to the greater NYC area and advise the CEO's of the other companies to do the same. After all, NYC clearly doesn't want to contribute to global warming, so they should be just fine without any access to gas or fuel, right?

Yeah....this embargo would certainly help with any PR for the oil companies. If not like it would only affect NYC but the entire nation.

Or maybe they should and there'd be a major push to something else and away from the shackles of big oil.

Didn't the railroads try this and it resulted in the US government taking total control of the railroads?

You want the same for oil?

[prwraith]

Quite frankly, I don't give a shit about that and neither do most people who rely on cars for personal transportation. The fact is, I need to be able to get around from point A to point B, and the only way to do so quickly, efficiently and reliably (and affordably) is cars. Cars require fuel. Nothing can change that fact. So until such a time comes that something as reliable and cheap as a car that runs on fuel comes along, I will continue to purchase gas for my car as a necessity of life.

What oil companies have claimed about global warming is completely and utterly irrelevant and does nothing to change the realities of my daily life.

Kinda like people still purchase cigarettes as part of their daily life >.< I'll take being obtuse for 1000

[Hellrime]

Not at all. It is like Al Gore complaining about global warming and flying around in a private jet, spewing out green gas pollutants. I am sure during the big freeze that New York had, the government of New York, did not try to stay warm by not using any fossil fuels. :P

Some of the biggest proponents against global warming are the biggest hypocrites as well. Barack Obama spoke on Global Warming/Climate Change and then had a Cadillac named The Beast made that multiple countries wouldn't allow the thing in because of emissions. The problem with climate change is people who deny it are stupid, and those who are trying to prove it exists have no idea how it works.

[Deleted]

No, they didn't. If you really think they 'rebranded' Global Warming to Climate Change, think about what the last two letters of 'IPCC' stand for. And then note that the IPCC was formed way more than a decade ago.

Rebranding was a good idea, beecause the trend of increased temperature will not necessarily continue linearly, because there is a decent chance the sun will go into a dark period, and we might experience a minor cooling period for a few decades, while the CO2 levels continue increasing.

[kail]

Maybe use that effort further invest in the alternative energy sources? What will suing the oil companies do in the end...force them to stop dealing with oil?