Poll: How much of your own money would you be willing to personally spend each month to reduce the impact of climate change?

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

How much of your own $ would you be willing to spend monthly to reduce the impact of climate change?

  • $0

  • $1-$10

  • $11-$20

  • $21-$30

  • $31-$40

  • $41-$50

  • $51-$75

  • $76-$100

  • Greater than $100


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
For me it would depend on who’s charging, how transparent they are, and how they say they’re going to use it. $48.73 monthly (my calculated minimum fair share I calculated on Page 2) for switching to an on-the-market greener product is no big deal for me. $48.73 (x12 months) less on my tax refund to fund a local green development, re-development, or de-development project, one that I could drive by and see every day, would also be no big deal. $48.73 on my energy bill that would likely go directly into the SDG&E CEO’s pocket would tick me off.
 
If your electric bill is less than $100 per month, and you were quoted $60,000 for a rooftop solar power system, you were being targeted by a scam.

The system is supposed to be scaled to the historical usage, and it sounds like you were being quoted a system on the order of 10x what you actually would need. My electric bill was about $125 per month, and my power system was about $9,000, so it will pay for itself in about 6 years, which is a bit on the high end for a few different reasons. It’s usually a bit shorter. Your system should cost only about $7,000 total after tax credits, and probably less, but that‘s about the ballpark for the maximum you would need.

I agree with you on some of your other points about never being able to recoup the cost of a more efficient item based on the energy savings. My wife and I bought a Camry Hybrid in 2018 and paid close to what you said — $34,000. We knew that at the rate we drive, we would never pay off the difference with gas savings, but we still wanted the hybrid. It’s a great car, and I’m not sure if it’s true for Camry’s but some hybrids have better performance than the gas version of the same model due to the electric motor working with the gas motor to boost acceleration. I like how the car drives. The mileage is awesome. We got home from our 1,000-mile road trip yesterday, and it cost almost exactly $100 for the gas which was $3.99 for a complete fill-up from almost empty at the beginning and $4.69 for a partial fill up partway through, and there’s still over 150 miles range left on the tank. To me, that’s a nice price for such a long trip. I’ll never make up the cost of the difference in the car prices, but now that I’ve paid for the hybrid, I really don’t care much about the fluctuation in gas prices.

Agree 100% on the solar. Has happened on both of the homes I've bought recently. They see you just bought a home and they jump on you before you figure out what your actual months bill is going to be. It's a scare tactic that far too many people fall for.

I will agree that Hybrid Camry does feel quicker with the electric assist. much snappier but the CVT kills the actual numbers. It feels faster but in the couple of times he's tried to keep up with me we are side by side. And you're right. They are great cars.
 
And you didn't cherry pick your data to support your beliefs?
R_I_G_H_T.
Like the pot calling the kettle black.

BTW, the Wikipedia article you linked to runs counter to your argument:
"anthropogenic forcing from increased greenhouse gases is estimated to potentially outweigh the orbital forcing of the Milankovitch cycles for hundreds of thousands of years.[49][5][4]"

In other words human caused factors (i.e. production of greenhouse gases) will outweigh the effect of orbital perturbations affecting the inclination of the earth to the sun .(i.e. the cause of the cyclical cooling/warming periods).
I didn't cherry-pick a limited swathe of data that agreed with my thoughts, as you did. I presented the entire timeline, not just 20k years. Geological timescales are looong.

It is good that the wiki article has other information regarding anthropogenic effects. I am happy to read both sides of the argument and exceptionally happy that there is some balanced writing going on. If you look at writing by the climate calamity people it is usually one-sided and sometimes extreme. Anyone who writes a good article that is balanced is howled-down by the religious followers of climate change. There was an article on climate change (might have been a few) in the AIAA Aerospace America magazine a few years back. What was surprising was that it was quite a balanced article, showing both sides of the coin. They got many letters regarding the article, praising their journalist on presenting a balanced article and not following the line of more rowdy groups. It was commented on that science is not a belief system and all the data should be looked at.
I guess I should backtrack and ask you what do you think the graph you posted actually shows or supports? Because I see an upward trend in temperature from about 20,000 years ago at two locations (green and blue lines). The red line shows ice volume. It is a little confusing because it is counter intuitive. If you look at the left hand side you see "Low" and "High". So a peak on the red line indicates a low point in volume of ice. This makes sense because increasing temperature would correlate to reduction in ice volume.
So the years of large scale human production of greenhouse gases is a tiny blip on the far right hand side of the graph. The world human population was perhaps 1 billion in 1800, around the start of the Industrial Revolution. It is now 8 billion, an eightfold increase in less than 225 years.
You wouldn't be able to see any effects on the graph of greenhouse gasses on temperature unless you changed the scale of the graph.
What do you see?
The graph clearly shows the cyclic nature of the temperature of the Earth (even before humans were around) and the changes in the ice volume. I agree that the ice volume thing being inverted is a strange way to show the data, but it essentially indicates the same thing and perhaps better elucidates the correlation to the rest of the data.

The big problem with this prediction of global warming is that the models are just that. By choosing different models people on both sides of the debate choose models or parameters that show particular outcomes and base their reasoning on that. That is how science and simulations are supposed to work. The problem nowadays is that there is so much funding dependent on projected outcomes there is very strident lobbying by people who are prepared to ignore the other side of the coin, push their own agenda and berate critics just to continue their employment and lifestyles. When people start treating other scientists as heretics just because they found something counter to their view it ceases to be science and becomes dogma.

Refer to my signature for my thoughts on simulations, and keep an open mind to all the data.
 
I didn't cherry-pick a limited swathe of data that agreed with my thoughts, as you did. I presented the entire timeline, not just 20k years. Geological timescales are looong.
So you presented a geologic timeline and say that it's not cherry picking because it shows the "whole story".
But when I presented an even longer timeline of the cyclic variation in CO2 concentration somehow that IS cherry picking? And a limited swath of data? Over 800,000 YEARS?
Not a very good argument for your case when you contradict yourself like that.
 
The graph clearly shows the cyclic nature of the temperature of the Earth (even before humans were around) and the changes in the ice volume. I agree that the ice volume thing being inverted is a strange way to show the data, but it essentially indicates the same thing and perhaps better elucidates the correlation to the rest of the data.
So again why did you post that graph? What do you think it shows that supports your claim regarding climate change. The cyclical nature of ice temperature was never a point of dispute or argument by either side. What are you seeing that I don't see? :questions:
 
There was a recent poll on this subject I am curious how this community compares to that poll. I will share the results of the other poll after responses have had time to be given.

Edit: Before this thread gets locked I will post the result of the other poll that asked the exact same question. Interesting the results were similar but this community is slightly more polar. The AP had similar poll with a different question, words matter, but the results were also similar. In the AP-NORC poll 68% of the respondants wouldn't spend $10 a month in higher electricity bills to fight climate change. (AP poll reView attachment 551894
View attachment 551892

On the AP- NORC poll, about how many people willing or unwilling to pay 10 bucks more on their energy bill, something interesting happened locally over the past few years.

Alameda County, where I live, created a community energy co-op as an alternative electricity retailer to PG&E, the power company for much of Northern California. The EBCE co-op was set up to purchase electricity from different generators, and they sold a few different electricity plans. You could get one with roughly the same mix of renewable or zero carbon electricity as PG&E, and it would be cheaper by a small percentage. You could get one that cost almost exactly what PG&E would charge, but it would be cleaner. Or you could pay a small percentage more for a 100% renewable and zero-carbon plan. The differences for a typical bill were pretty small, like around $10 per month.

I don’t really remember the details of the roll-out now, but I know that there was a period you could opt in, which I did for the squeaky clean plan. Only a small percentage of residents opted in to any EBCE plan. That included opting in to the money-saving plan too.

Then some of the cities in the county decided to default residents into the co-op, and some cities made the squeaky clean plan the default, while others made the cleaner-than-PG&E plan the default. Residents could always change their plan or opt out completely and go back to PG&E.

Mostly people just didn’t care either way and just stuck with whatever they were put in. Some of the cities ended up with something like 90% of residents on the cleanest plans. $10 a month wasn’t worth bothering to opt in or out or probably even bothering to look at the options.

So maybe a lot of people say they would not want to pay more, but the lesson I took from this co-op thing was they really couldn’t care less. There were a few irate people who came to some of the City Council meetings and SCREAMED about how it was an outrage and threatened to recall everybody or challenge them in the next election, but nothing came of it. People don’t care about such small amounts of money.
 
So you presented a geologic timeline and say that it's not cherry picking because it shows the "whole story".
But when I presented an even longer timeline of the cyclic variation in CO2 concentration somehow that IS cherry picking? And a limited swath of data? Over 800,000 YEARS?
Not a very good argument for your case when you contradict yourself like that.
No, I criticised you cherry-picking the original 20k years of data for temperature cycles. Please read the posts carefully. You either misread or mis-interpreted my post or are trying to deliberately gaslight me. Your graph of CO2 was what you threw in as a distraction rather than discussing the other data that didn't fit your expectations.
 
So again why did you post that graph? What do you think it shows that supports your claim regarding climate change. The cyclical nature of ice temperature was never a point of dispute or argument by either side. What are you seeing that I don't see? :questions:
I should remind you that you originally posted the XKCD strip to support your position in this discussion. Had you forgotten?
 
No, I criticised you cherry-picking the original 20k years of data for temperature cycles.
I should remind you that you originally posted the XKCD strip to support your position in this discussion. Had you forgotten?


You need to re-read the posts. Someone else posted 20K of temperature data, not me.
And get the facts straight before you accuse someone of gaslighting.
A bigger man would apologize for their mistake, but I'm not holding my breath.
 
Well understand this, after that, if you are a climate change advocate or activist you are now considered to be an inherently evil, satanic, person and I have a very deep and violent hatred of you, you, you specifically, you personally.
Whether I have ever met you is irrelevant, you are one of them and you are by definition evil and my sworn enemy.

Well, I suppose maybe I’m a “climate change advocate”, so guess it’s pistols at dawn for you and me!

Or, wait… Can we make it noon? I have human sacrifices at dawn, so it’s going to have to be later.
 
then it flipped again back to global warming .... then when they got called out on it the whole thing was renamed to "Climate Change".

Global warming and climate change are two connected things, but not exactly the same. Global warming is the increase in global temperatures due to increased greenhouse gasses trapping more heat. And climate change is the change in weather patterns that is caused by the increased temperatures that come with global warming. Global warming results in climate change.

It’s like accusing your doctor of flip-flopping, “Hey, you dumb quack! You used to tell me I had high blood pressure, but now you say I’m having a stroke!”
 
My descendants will be right there with yours, and they will laugh at people who believe what snake oil salesmen say. Al Gore is a weather pimp, who preys on the weak minded. Like certain others are poverty pimps. I don't believe a word that comes out of their mouths. And unless you have a hella big dimmer switch, your not lowering the Earth's temperature !

I don’t have any descendants but I still do care what’s left when I’m gone. I’m just always surprised when people who do have kids don’t care. At this point, I think there is zero chance they don’t inherit a worse world than we did. Crazy weather, food scarcity, increased disease and pests, ruined nature. It’s already starting, and it’s going to get worse. If you do have kids, have you ever asked them what they think about climate change?
 
"For decades, the country’s leading oil and gas companies have understood the science of climate change and the dangers posed by fossil fuels. Year after year, top executives heard it from their own scientists whose warnings were explicit and often dire.

In 1979, an Exxon study said that burning fossil fuels “will cause dramatic environmental effects” in the coming decades.

“The potential problem is great and urgent,” it concluded.

But instead of heeding the evidence of the research they were funding, major oil firms worked together to bury the findings and manufacture a counter narrative to undermine the growing scientific consensus around climate science..."

Obviously this blurb from The Guardian about a concerted effort by fossil fuel companies conspiring to produce and advertise fraudulent scientific studies and information regarding their own industry's destructive influence on climate change is a bunch of horse hockey, but i'm wondering if there are any groups or companies or organizations that have been found to be lying about their studies regarding data suggesting the opposite, that human industry is blameless?

who are the lab coats that are getting fat on these lies?
 
Lol. This is funny to me. It looks like I started a poll on climate change back in 2014. It just popped up in New Posts. Apparently, it got revived yesterday and then locked today. I didn’t even realize that thread was still open after all those years. I thought all my threads on this topic from back then got locked years ago, but this one apparently sat dormant for 8 years, only to re-emerge from hibernation, and then immediately die.

https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/climate-change-–-happening-or-not.66355/
 
Obviously this blurb from The Guardian about a concerted effort by fossil fuel companies conspiring to produce and advertise fraudulent scientific studies and information regarding their own industry's destructive influence on climate change is a bunch of horse hockey,
Obviously.
Like the tobacco industry being accused of deliberately lying about the harmful effects of smoking. They would never do anything like that.
Would they?
;)
 
You need to re-read the posts. Someone else posted 20K of temperature data, not me.
And get the facts straight before you accuse someone of gaslighting.
A bigger man would apologize for their mistake, but I'm not holding my breath.
Ok. Just checked and you didn't post the XKCD info. My apologies to you for mistaking you for doing that. You did however follow it immediately with the CO2, so maybe the tacit support of the XKCD set things off. Apologies for the misunderstandings along the way. If I had figured or you had mentioned earlier that you didn't post the XKCD chart then this discussion might have been a bit shorter.

Gaslighting was only one of the possibilities by the way, there were two others I proffered. Please don't jump to an immediate defensive response if one is not needed. I was not sure what direction you were coming from, hence the three posibilities as I saw it. No judgement either way from this end for that. Also, no need to insult me by insinuating I am a little man without finding what my actual response would be first.

So we had an interesting discussion along the way. You offered a graph that shows increasing CO2 and is clearly anthropgenic. I guess there are no other mechanisms that would be able to achieve that until man came along. What does it mean for us? That's what the models can teach us.
 
What is your answer to your poll?
Alex,

The question polled is kind of a "Rorschach" question. For me I interpreted the question is how much extra would I spend for energy bills (electric, heating) to prevent the impacts of climate change by de-carbonizing the retail energy supply. For that I selected 0. Mainly for the reason that I believe that de-carbonizing the energy supply would not affect any impact of climate change if an impact were to happen.

Now if the question was posed or interpreted as how much extra would you spend to harden my local infrastructure against possible impacts of climate change my selection would not be 0. Because if an impact were to materialize we would certainly be forced to pay for those.

In addition I would only to agree to pay for hardening the infrastructure where I live. I would not want to pay for hardening the infrastructure for those who have decided to live in areas below sea level or areas that are naturally deserts.
 
Ok. Just checked and you didn't post the XKCD info. My apologies to you for mistaking you for doing that. You did however follow it immediately with the CO2, so maybe the tacit support of the XKCD set things off. Apologies for the misunderstandings along the way. If I had figured or you had mentioned earlier that you didn't post the XKCD chart then this discussion might have been a bit shorter.

Gaslighting was only one of the possibilities by the way, there were two others I proffered. Please don't jump to an immediate defensive response if one is not needed. I was not sure what direction you were coming from, hence the three posibilities as I saw it. No judgement either way from this end for that. Also, no need to insult me by insinuating I am a little man without finding what my actual response would be first.

So we had an interesting discussion along the way. You offered a graph that shows increasing CO2 and is clearly anthropgenic. I guess there are no other mechanisms that would be able to achieve that until man came along. What does it mean for us? That's what the models can teach us.
Apology accepted.
The problem is not the science, data, or models.
They are pretty much universally saying the same thing.
But a segment of people are not hearing what the science is saying.
That is the real problem.
Time to move on.
 
You offered a graph that shows increasing CO2 and is clearly anthropgenic. I guess there are no other mechanisms that would be able to achieve that until man came along. What does it mean for us? That's what the models can teach us.

It’s something that has never happened before in human history for sure, or in the fossil record, as far as we know. A completely unprecedented spike in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. And that’s not something that can ever be put back in the bottle. It’s permanently changed the course of the planet’s natural history.

What does it mean for us? Nobody knows for certain exactly what is going to happen, but we know what has already happened and is likely to continue to happen with greater intensity.

  • Global temperatures have risen and continue to rise.
  • Glaciers and ice sheets have melted, and the rate of melting continues to accelerate.
  • The sea levels have risen in most areas.
  • The ranges for tropical diseases and pests have increased into formerly temperate zones, including new diseases and pests migrating into the US.
    Severe drought and catastrophic flooding have both increased.
  • Wild fires have increased.
  • The annual number of dangerous days of extreme heat have increased.
  • Some feedback effects have started which are going to increase the amount of greenhouse gasses, even if we stop producing them, such as CO2 and methane being released from melting permafrost.

So that’s just a few examples of effects already happening right now. We are just at the very beginning of seeing the effects of that huge spike in CO2. It takes awhile to heat up an entire planet. And it’s going to take a long, long time for a very complex and chaotic system thrown off balance to re-stabilize, if it ever does.
 
Alex,

The question polled is kind of a "Rorschach" question. For me I interpreted the question is how much extra would I spend for energy bills (electric, heating) to prevent the impacts of climate change by de-carbonizing the retail energy supply. For that I selected 0. Mainly for the reason that I believe that de-carbonizing the energy supply would not affect any impact of climate change if an impact were to happen.

Now if the question was posed or interpreted as how much extra would you spend to harden my local infrastructure against possible impacts of climate change my selection would not be 0. Because if an impact were to materialize we would certainly be forced to pay for those.

In addition I would only to agree to pay for hardening the infrastructure where I live. I would not want to pay for hardening the infrastructure for those who have decided to live in areas below sea level or areas that are naturally deserts.

That’s kind of an odd framing because that’s not the question the poll asks. The question is, “How much of your own $ would you be willing to spend monthly to reduce the impact of climate change?”

The question includes the assumptions that climate change is a real thing that has an impact and that spending can reduce that impact. It seems like you are rejecting the premise of your own poll.
 
That’s kind of an odd framing because that’s not the question the poll asks. The question is, “How much of your own $ would you be willing to spend monthly to reduce the impact of climate change?”

The question includes the assumptions that climate change is a real thing that has an impact and that spending can reduce that impact. It seems like you are rejecting the premise of your own poll.
Not at all Thirsty. Lets stipulate there is an impact. The impact can reduced only 1 way. That is adapting and mitigating the effects with civil engineering and infrastructure hardening. Decarbonizing will not reduce the impact of climate change unless its stops climate change. That is not reducing the impact of climate change, that is reducing climate change, which I believe impossible to change the course of.
 
And then there's the thing where a group of rather intense climate change activists tells you to your face, in-person, that because you have been disabled all your life you should have been aborted for the good of the Earth.
Oh?
Really?
Well understand this, after that, if you are a climate change advocate or activist you are now considered to be an inherently evil, satanic, person and I have a very deep and violent hatred of you, you, you specifically, you personally.
Whether I have ever met you is irrelevant, you are one of them and you are by definition evil and my sworn enemy.
I love how you've taken a position of the most extreme climate activists (reduction of the human population) and implied that everyone who cares about climate change also wants a genocide.
 
I thought this forum was about rocketry. But let’s get something straight: after all the cows are corked, and all the coal and NG plants are shut down and we all have solar panels on our foreheads… they will come for our hobby.
 
Last edited:
Alex,

The question polled is kind of a "Rorschach" question. For me I interpreted the question is how much extra would I spend for energy bills (electric, heating) to prevent the impacts of climate change by de-carbonizing the retail energy supply. For that I selected 0. Mainly for the reason that I believe that de-carbonizing the energy supply would not affect any impact of climate change if an impact were to happen.

Now if the question was posed or interpreted as how much extra would you spend to harden my local infrastructure against possible impacts of climate change my selection would not be 0. Because if an impact were to materialize we would certainly be forced to pay for those.

In addition I would only to agree to pay for hardening the infrastructure where I live. I would not want to pay for hardening the infrastructure for those who have decided to live in areas below sea level or areas that are naturally deserts.
Thank you for the reply. I do not agree 100% with your angle but I appreciate and enjoy the discussion and thanks for keeping things lively!
 
The earth is not in thermal equilibrium. It has never been. The climate is either cooling or warming. When the globe warms between inter-glacial periods sea levels rise. Fortunately the sea level rises at very slow rate compared to the progress of civil engineering technology. Amsterdam has been below sea level for a loooong time, >500 years. Amsterdam is a very nice place. The warming phase of climate cycles is much better for mankind than the cooling phase.

Edit: Don't challenge the science that the climate is changing that is fact. Even don't challenge the science that man has been a contributor, CO2 IS a greenhouse gas. DO challenge the proposed remedies that are totally wacky.
 
The earth is not in thermal equilibrium. It has never been. The climate is either cooling or warming. When the globe warms between inter-glacial periods sea levels rise. Fortunately the sea level rises at very slow rate compared to the progress of civil engineering technology. Amsterdam has been below sea level for a loooong time, >500 years. Amsterdam is a very nice place. The warming phase of climate cycles is much better for mankind than the cooling phase.

Edit: Don't challenge the science that the climate is changing that is fact. Even don't challenge the science that man has been a contributor, CO2 IS a greenhouse gas. DO challenge the proposed remedies that are totally wacky.
I get that, but do we stop burning fossil fuels at some point? If we don’t ramp down now, when and why?

I don’t think an overnight change is possible, and if it were it’d be near impossible to implement… but dragging our feet longer also seems less than ideal. I think the solution isn’t going to be simple and the implementation even less so. It’s a hard problem that isn’t purely solved by science. The social and political aspects are just as difficult, if not the hardest part.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top