Arnold "Doesn't Give A ****" If You Agree On Climate Change

[Fanghawk]

Arnold "Doesn't Give A ****" If You Agree On Climate Change

//cdn.themis-media.com/media/global/images/library/deriv/1023/1023493.jpgArnold Schwarzenegger doesn't care what you think about climate change: He's going to talk you into renewable energy anyway.

Between the Paris conference and our exceptionally warm winter, <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/tag/view/climate%20change?os=climate+change>climate change is on everyone's mind. And while it's great that the world's nations have a greenhouse gas accord, making businesses and the public follow suit might prove a difficult task. But you know who could pull it off? The freaking Terminator. <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/tag/view/arnold%20schwarzenegger?os=arnold+schwarzenegger>Arnold Schwarzenegger himself recently posted an open letter on Facebook, making a case for renewable energy that has nothing to do with greenhouse gases. In fact, Arnold "doesn't give a ****" whether you think climate change is real or not.

"Let's put climate change aside for a minute. In fact, let's assume you're right." Schwarzenegger writes. "Every day, 19,000 people die from pollution from fossil fuels. Do you accept those deaths? Do you accept that children all over the world have to grow up breathing with inhalers? Now, my second question: Do you believe coal and oil will be the fuels of the future? Besides the fact that fossil fuels destroy our lungs, everyone agrees that eventually they will run out.

"I, personally, want a plan. I don't want to be like the last horse and buggy salesman who was holding out as cars took over the roads. I don't want to be the last investor in Blockbuster as Netflix emerged. That's exactly what is going to happen to fossil fuels."

Schwarzenegger also argues that renewable energy actually boosts the economy, using California as an early-adopter example. This certainly isn't a new belief for Schwarzenegger - he expressed <a href=http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/arnoldschwarzeneggerunitednations.htm>the same sentiments during his time as governor. But it's still a refreshing approach that doesn't get bogged down by the same greenhouse gas discussion. It's worth reading in full, even if the "four-letter word" he chooses is tamer than you might think.

"Behind Door Number One is a completely sealed room, with a regular, gasoline-fueled car," Schwarzenegger writes. "Behind Door Number Two is an identical, completely sealed room, with an electric car. Both engines are running full blast. I want you to pick a door to open, and enter the room and shut the door behind you. You have to stay in the room you choose for one hour. You cannot turn off the engine. You do not get a gas mask.

"I'm guessing you chose the Door Number Two, with the electric car, right? Door number one is a fatal choice - who would ever want to breathe those fumes? This is the choice the world is making right now."

Although as some Facebook commenters noted, there might have been a better way to end this post:


Source: <a href=https://www.facebook.com/notes/arnold-schwarzenegger/i-dont-give-a-if-we-agree-about-climate-change/10153855713574658?fref=nf>Facebook, via <a href=http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/arnold-schwarzenegger-doesnt-give-a-if-you-agree-with-him-about-climate-change-w160329>US Magazine

Permalink

 

[MCerberus]

Ah yes, the capitalist argument for renewables. For some reason people always ignore it.

 

[Zontar]

Ah yes, the capitalist argument for renewables. For some reason people always ignore it.

It's likely due to the fact that a large part of the environmental movement is openly anti-capitalist, so they wouldn't want something they see as a negative used as an argument for what would most likely end up being nuclear power, another thing that a lot of environmentalists are for whatever reason again despite the fact it's the only clean source of energy that, lest we finish developing nuclear fusion, can realistically replace fossil fuels.

Basically environmentalists are their own worst enemies these days, and it'll take more people making arguments for pragmatism instead of arguments for ideology for that to change.

 

[Silence]

Ah yes, the capitalist argument for renewables. For some reason people always ignore it.

It's a really strong argument, and lots of people really don't even get it.

The state (for lack of a better term, state like for example Texas, although it has a little bit less independece) in germany I'm in has a green government ... and is the strongest industrial state in germany.

It did have a bit of a slump ... before the greens came to power. Now it is going strong again, because of pushing that stuff.

Although the greens here are really funny, they basically went with conservatism ... only green ... in the elections.

 

[Albino Boo]

Ah yes, the capitalist argument for renewables. For some reason people always ignore it.

It's largely because there isnt one. Renewables only become viable with large tax payer funded subsidies. Renewables get a $7.3 billion subsidy per year as opposed to nuclear power's $1.1 billion. Yet both produce no carbon and nuclear is available 24/7 and requires no back up power plants for when the wind isn't blowing/ sun isnt shining.

 

[Rawbeard]

Isn't Arnold Republican? I don't see the party approving of this.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Renewable energy isn't something we should all strive for just because climate change is a real threat. If we switch to renewable energy, then we'll have no use for Saudi Arabia as an "ally". And seeing how Saudi Arabia is behind the spread of Wahhabi ideology and they're the main financier of terrorism, we'll finally be able to deal with the source of the whole problem.

 

[vallorn]

Ah yes, the capitalist argument for renewables. For some reason people always ignore it.

There's great, capitalist arguments for most environmentally friendly things, cutting back waste, recycling things like Aluminium, insulating or using LED lightbulbs, and so on and so forth. All these things have really great arguments from a capitalist sense, saving money in the long term by investing is, after all, one of the core parts of modern economics.

However, modern environmentalism is violently anti-capitalist, there's more than a few people on this very forum who, in a recent thread, were trying to argue that we needed to 'dismantle capitalism' or other slogans like that in order to be green, and that's just a lost cause.

 

[Asclepion]

Ah yes, the capitalist argument for renewables. For some reason people always ignore it.

It's largely because there isnt one. Renewables only become viable with large tax payer funded subsidies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
None of the major industries would be profitable if they incurred the public health, social, and environmental costs themselves. Allowing them to deplete 'natural capital' (existing value of stuff like clean water and a stable atmosphere) without recompense is itself basically a massive subsidy.

Also, quantifying the economic value of having a habitable planet is lunacy.

 

[Albino Boo]

Ah yes, the capitalist argument for renewables. For some reason people always ignore it.

It's largely because there isnt one. Renewables only become viable with large tax payer funded subsidies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
None of the major industries would be profitable if they incurred the public health, social, and environmental costs themselves. Allowing them to deplete 'natural capital' (existing value of stuff like clean water and a stable atmosphere) without recompense is itself basically a massive subsidy.

Also, quantifying the economic value of having a habitable planet is lunacy.

So why choose the most expensive option?

 

[MCerberus]

Ah yes, the capitalist argument for renewables. For some reason people always ignore it.

It's largely because there isnt one. Renewables only become viable with large tax payer funded subsidies. Renewables get a $7.3 billion subsidy per year as opposed to nuclear power's $1.1 billion. Yet both produce no carbon and nuclear is available 24/7 and requires no back up power plants for when the wind isn't blowing/ sun isnt shining.

Actually there's the concept of critical mass at play here. By putting resouces into renewables until they're viable at which point the whole system moves forward on this path. These sort of cross-sector relationships are common. There's also the down-wind benefits of going green. Do you know how much economic output can be recovered by reducing pollution? IT'S INSANE. Even when you just think of health costs.

The problem is twofold: 1, the ghost of Rand continues to spread her disastrous ideology and people for some reason listen (side note, Objectivism fails the exact same way communism does, in that it doesn't actually account for human nature. That's why it's so short sided. Oh, and it's actually a non-arguable ethical system as in, it doesn't actually mean anything) and yell loudly about it.

2. As stated by others, nuclear keeps being rejected because it's "scary", despite the track record (aside from being the cleanest source of energy by killowatt hour, but it caused less injury and death since its invention as a power source than coal kills in a year)

 

[freaper]

This might not be 100% related, but aren't the people lobbying against renewable energy usually on the conservative side of the political spectrum? Which is ironic, considering they aren't [em]conserving[/em] the planet.

[sub](+1 clever point for me, check)[/sub]

 

[Albino Boo]

Ah yes, the capitalist argument for renewables. For some reason people always ignore it.

It's largely because there isnt one. Renewables only become viable with large tax payer funded subsidies. Renewables get a $7.3 billion subsidy per year as opposed to nuclear power's $1.1 billion. Yet both produce no carbon and nuclear is available 24/7 and requires no back up power plants for when the wind isn't blowing/ sun isnt shining.

Actually there's the concept of critical mass at play here. By putting resouces into renewables until they're viable at which point the whole system moves forward on this path. These sort of cross-sector relationships are common. There's also the down-wind benefits of going green. Do you know how much economic output can be recovered by reducing pollution? IT'S INSANE. Even when you just think of health costs.

The problem is twofold: 1, the ghost of Rand continues to spread her disastrous ideology and people for some reason listen (side note, Objectivism fails the exact same way communism does, in that it doesn't actually account for human nature. That's why it's so short sided. Oh, and it's actually a non-arguable ethical system as in, it doesn't actually mean anything) and yell loudly about it.

2. As stated by others, nuclear keeps being rejected because it's "scary", despite the track record (aside from being the cleanest source of energy by killowatt hour, but it caused less injury and death since its invention as a power source than coal kills in a year)

So after 20 years and $100s of billions of dollars spent by governments world wide why hasn't it happened? The reality here is that renewables are not as efficient as non renewables. In the real world, this week Opec has predicted an oil price of $35 a barrel until 2040. Electric cars cannot compete with an oil price that low. Its very simple, the chemical bonds in gasoline have more energy stored in them than you can get out of any battery. So the energy stored per volume in gas makes it more efficient. I can remember as long as the early 80s all the talk about hydrogen fuel cells powering vehicles and yet 30 years later its still talk. 10 years ago the same people who are talking about criticality where talking about peak oil. In the real world the oil price is the lowest since 2004 and falling.

 

[The Enquirer]

Renewable energy isn't something we should all strive for just because climate change is a real threat. If we switch to renewable energy, then we'll have no use for Saudi Arabia as an "ally". And seeing how Saudi Arabia is behind the spread of Wahhabi ideology and they're the main financier of terrorism, we'll finally be able to deal with the source of the whole problem.

To take this one step further, the more we push renewable energy in our own country, foreign automakers will eventually follow giving us this trickle effect, giving us the scenario where other countries also aren't dependent on Saudi Arabia. And then we will also have a large supply of oil we aren't using nearly as much of.

 

[Baresark]

He is, of course, completely right. Climate change debate be damned, the future will always be in renewables, but oil companies are too short sighted, to worried about their bottom line. It's pointless to try and win people over to one side or the other on climate change. Regardless of what you think, you want to live in a clean world where the electricity flows endlessly.

Basically environmentalists are their own worst enemies these days, and it'll take more people making arguments for pragmatism instead of arguments for ideology for that to change.

This is a 100% accurate description. You have to either drink all of their Kool-Aid or none of it, it's complete nonsense. It doesn't help that a whole lot of people buy into the idea without even knowing the first thing about environmentalism. People talk about Green movements and Sustainability, but only take it at face value.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Ah yes, the capitalist argument for renewables. For some reason people always ignore it.

It's largely because there isnt one. Renewables only become viable with large tax payer funded subsidies. Renewables get a $7.3 billion subsidy per year as opposed to nuclear power's $1.1 billion. Yet both produce no carbon and nuclear is available 24/7 and requires no back up power plants for when the wind isn't blowing/ sun isnt shining.

Actually there's the concept of critical mass at play here. By putting resouces into renewables until they're viable at which point the whole system moves forward on this path. These sort of cross-sector relationships are common. There's also the down-wind benefits of going green. Do you know how much economic output can be recovered by reducing pollution? IT'S INSANE. Even when you just think of health costs.

The problem is twofold: 1, the ghost of Rand continues to spread her disastrous ideology and people for some reason listen (side note, Objectivism fails the exact same way communism does, in that it doesn't actually account for human nature. That's why it's so short sided. Oh, and it's actually a non-arguable ethical system as in, it doesn't actually mean anything) and yell loudly about it.

2. As stated by others, nuclear keeps being rejected because it's "scary", despite the track record (aside from being the cleanest source of energy by killowatt hour, but it caused less injury and death since its invention as a power source than coal kills in a year)

So after 20 years and $100s of billions of dollars spent by governments world wide why hasn't it happened? The reality here is that renewables are not as efficient as non renewables. In the real world, this week Opec has predicted an oil price of $35 a barrel until 2040. Electric cars cannot compete with an oil price that low. Its very simple, the chemical bonds in gasoline have more energy stored in them than you can get out of any battery. So the energy stored per volume in gas makes it more efficient. I can remember as long as the early 80s all the talk about hydrogen fuel cells powering vehicles and yet 30 years later its still talk. 10 years ago the same people who are talking about criticality where talking about peak oil. In the real world the oil price is the lowest since 2004 and falling.

You understand why oil is falling, right? It's because OPEC is still pumping oil like it was when America was heavy in Iraq and all. They're doing this to try and push America and Russia out of the shale game since that needs expensive oil to be profitable. They're running themselves ragged [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-22/as-opec-tries-to-squeeze-rivals-one-of-its-own-feels-the-pinch] trying to keep it up. Oh, and your prediction on oil price is not their prediction. [http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35166467] These low oil prices are entirely artificial as OPEC runs through their supply faster than they need to.

 

[shintakie10]

Isn't Arnold Republican? I don't see the party approving of this.

He's a Californian Republican. Totally different thing.

 

[Zontar]

Isn't Arnold Republican? I don't see the party approving of this.

He's a Californian Republican. Totally different thing.

I don't know, Nixon and Reagan where both California Republicans as well.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

Should we start looking to renewable energy? Absolutely. Is current renewable energy just as effective as fossil fuels? Only nuclear energy. And even then, only certain kinds of reactors.

 

[Paragon Fury]

Ah yes, the capitalist argument for renewables. For some reason people always ignore it.

It's largely because there isnt one. Renewables only become viable with large tax payer funded subsidies. Renewables get a $7.3 billion subsidy per year as opposed to nuclear power's $1.1 billion. Yet both produce no carbon and nuclear is available 24/7 and requires no back up power plants for when the wind isn't blowing/ sun isnt shining.

Fossil fuels were never profitable before.

Literally the only reason they are now is because the governments of the world literally shoveled money at companies to invest in research, exploration and extraction of fossil fuels early on. The grants and tax benefits of today are leftovers from that program - which is why people argue that governments should stop helping these companies now and switch to green energy, since oil and fossil fuel extraction is literally the most profitable business on the planet and doesn't need the help anymore.