Climate Change and the Perils of Inaction

[GannonFan]

Sorry, I'm not with you on the self-loathing thing. If that makes you feel better, hey, self-loathe all you want.

You're idea about how much we can leverage our markets has always been a hallmark of your's, but it just doesn't work. We can't decide the direction and fate of the world simply on the strength of the US market. Again, there does exist a whole world out there that would still exist even if the US market closed its doors and ignored the rest of the world, as you seem to think we should do. And even if we closed our doors, the rest of the world would still try to better themselves and to rise above subsistence living, and we'd be in the same pickle we are today. The Chinese didn't decide to stop living meal to meal and start manufacturing things simply because the US market would buy those things. They did it because they didn't want to live meal to meal anymore.

The irony over the debate of free trade or no free trade is that it isn't a choice - it will happen, eventually, no matter what you choose. It's like a Nash game theory exercise - you're always going to end up there in the end. Pretending it's a choice and pretending that we can turn it on or off at our whim is just pure fancy.

Again, putting words in my mouth.

Funny that me...the progressive is arguing that nations operate from rational self interest here. Kind of like Adam Smith...you know...the grand uncle of capitalism suggested. Again..I think American values of resource management and environmental stewardship are positives that shod be exported abroad. You and the corporations that benefit from deregulation do not. Why do you hate America?

I think they are too, and it would be great if they could be exported abroad with the snap of a finger like you're proposing. However, I realize that they can't just be forced upon people who aren't even capable of that yet. You're like the astronaut in Apollo 13 that wanted to worry about step 232 when they were on step 4. Sure, you can slap yourself on the back as a forward thinker, but with that mentality, you'll never get there anyway because you haven't done the necessary steps between (of course, I think you're perfectly alright with that scenario because you think that will freeze everything in place, ala the 1950's, and we'll never have to deal with competition again). A developing country isn't going to be able to jump from bare subsistence to an American system of very well regulated environmental management (along with the tack-ons we try to throw on in terms of worker pay and so on to mirror what we have today) overnight. It's a process and it takes longer than that. But in the end, as we're seeing in China, it gets people to the same level of concern about the environment, exaclty as free trade said it would.

Why do you hate people (especially non-Americans) so much? Is it the color of their skin? Shame on you.

[UNI88]

I went to college with Steve Chapman. He was Republican Club president his senior year, and his politics then were much more conservative than they are now. Now he's morphed into UNI88.

He is pretty wiggly jiggly jelloy isn't he?

[grizzaholic]

The Earth does its thing. People have a minute to ZERO influence on what occurs.

[GannonFan]

The Earth does its thing. People have a minute to ZERO influence on what occurs.

Huh? So that whole dust bowl thing in the '30's had nothing to do with people?

You can be someone who rightfully interjects that science should never be done by consensus and that no science is ever truly settled, but that's entirely different from saying that people have close to zero influence on what happens on Earth. I think we've established that we can, at least temporarily, have pretty big impacts.

[grizzaholic]

The Earth does its thing. People have a minute to ZERO influence on what occurs.

Huh? So that whole dust bowl thing in the '30's had nothing to do with people?

You can be someone who rightfully interjects that science should never be done by consensus and that no science is ever truly settled, but that's entirely different from saying that people have close to zero influence on what happens on Earth. I think we've established that we can, at least temporarily, have pretty big impacts.

The only thing that people caused was poor farming tactics. The dry period just happened to coincide with the shitty farming to create the dustbowl...IMO. I am not good with words, but you are trying to equate apples and gasoline. (to use an AZ analogy)

If you want to place blame on someone for the climate, I blame Ibanez. He is solely to blame for the winter/summer/etc climates the Earth has sustained recently.

posting.php?mode=quote&f=9&p=853287" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[JohnStOnge]

Here's the thing:

There are two areas of uncertainty. The first involves whether or not the climate models are correct in predicting that the climate is going to get warmer.

The second involves whether or not things, on balance, will be better or worse if the climate does get warmer.

In other words, we there is uncertainty about whether or not we will make things better instead of worse if we take the steps the climate change people want us to take.

For all we know, our carbon emissions could prevent an Ice Age that otherwise may have occurred.

There is a WHOLE lot more uncertainty associated with the climate change issue than there is with the thought of what would happen, for instance, if Islamic terrorists got their hands on nuclear weapons. It's not the same thing at all.

I've posted this before and I'll post it again this time without providing references:

Even if the climate warms to the extent predicted by climate scientists right now over the next 100 years, the temperature of the planet will be lower than it's been for the overwhelming majority of the history of life on this planet. I'm talking about what is believed about the history of temperatures and the history of life.

Yet we are asked to believe that that's going to be a disaster. That's one of the problems with adopting the outlook the author presents.

[kalm]

Again, putting words in my mouth.

Funny that me...the progressive is arguing that nations operate from rational self interest here. Kind of like Adam Smith...you know...the grand uncle of capitalism suggested. Again..I think American values of resource management and environmental stewardship are positives that shod be exported abroad. You and the corporations that benefit from deregulation do not. Why do you hate America?

I think they are too, and it would be great if they could be exported abroad with the snap of a finger like you're proposing. However, I realize that they can't just be forced upon people who aren't even capable of that yet. You're like the astronaut in Apollo 13 that wanted to worry about step 232 when they were on step 4. Sure, you can slap yourself on the back as a forward thinker, but with that mentality, you'll never get there anyway because you haven't done the necessary steps between (of course, I think you're perfectly alright with that scenario because you think that will freeze everything in place, ala the 1950's, and we'll never have to deal with competition again). A developing country isn't going to be able to jump from bare subsistence to an American system of very well regulated environmental management (along with the tack-ons we try to throw on in terms of worker pay and so on to mirror what we have today) overnight. It's a process and it takes longer than that. But in the end, as we're seeing in China, it gets people to the same level of concern about the environment, exaclty as free trade said it would.

Why do you hate people (especially non-Americans) so much? Is it the color of their skin? Shame on you.

"Free trade" never "said anything".

Companies told China how to run their manufacturing, 30 years ago. Companies had zero interest in Chinese environment or wages until the cost for those things started to increase.

Why can't a developing country grow with more advanced regulation and quickly increasing wages?

[kalm]

Here's the thing:

There are two areas of uncertainty. The first involves whether or not the climate models are correct in predicting that the climate is going to get warmer.

The second involves whether or not things, on balance, will be better or worse if the climate does get warmer.

In other words, we there is uncertainty about whether or not we will make things better instead of worse if we take the steps the climate change people want us to take.

For all we know, our carbon emissions could prevent an Ice Age that otherwise may have occurred.

There is a WHOLE lot more uncertainty associated with the climate change issue than there is with the thought of what would happen, for instance, if Islamic terrorists got their hands on nuclear weapons. It's not the same thing at all.

I've posted this before and I'll post it again this time without providing references:

Even if the climate warms to the extent predicted by climate scientists right now over the next 100 years, the temperature of the planet will be lower than it's been for the overwhelming majority of the history of life on this planet. I'm talking about what is believed about the history of temperatures and the history of life.

Yet we are asked to believe that that's going to be a disaster. That's one of the problems with adopting the outlook the author presents.

Does that include human life where a large portion of the world's population lives on the coast? What about modern agriculture, how it's migrated and grown, and the people who rely upon it? Also please calculate for population growth.

[YoUDeeMan]

Here's the thing:

There are two areas of uncertainty. The first involves whether or not the climate models are correct in predicting that the climate is going to get warmer.

The second involves whether or not things, on balance, will be better or worse if the climate does get warmer.

In other words, we there is uncertainty about whether or not we will make things better instead of worse if we take the steps the climate change people want us to take.

For all we know, our carbon emissions could prevent an Ice Age that otherwise may have occurred.

There is a WHOLE lot more uncertainty associated with the climate change issue than there is with the thought of what would happen, for instance, if Islamic terrorists got their hands on nuclear weapons. It's not the same thing at all.

I've posted this before and I'll post it again this time without providing references:

Even if the climate warms to the extent predicted by climate scientists right now over the next 100 years, the temperature of the planet will be lower than it's been for the overwhelming majority of the history of life on this planet. I'm talking about what is believed about the history of temperatures and the history of life.

Yet we are asked to believe that that's going to be a disaster. That's one of the problems with adopting the outlook the author presents.

Does that include human life where a large portion of the world's population lives on the coast? What about modern agriculture, how it's migrated and grown, and the people who rely upon it? Also please calculate for population growth.

Uh, the coast will still be the coast...only a mile of so more inland.

Think of the opportunity for equality here...the richest bastages, those who usually own the prime beachfront properties, will be out of luck. In the meantime, regular Joe, who today owns something a mile from the beach, will be sitting pretty.

Why are you against the little guy?

[UNI88]

Does that include human life where a large portion of the world's population lives on the coast? What about modern agriculture, how it's migrated and grown, and the people who rely upon it? Also please calculate for population growth.

Uh, the coast will still be the coast...only a mile of so more inland.

Think of the opportunity for equality here...the richest bastages, those who usually own the prime beachfront properties, will be out of luck. In the meantime, regular Joe, who today owns something a mile from the beach, will be sitting pretty.

Why are you against the little guy?

Have you ever been to JSO's Louisiana? The highest point is 535 feet above sea level and the mean elevation is 100 feet. The state is a giant sponge. If it floods, we'll have a bunch of zydeco listenin', gumbo munchin' Cajuns wandering the earth like a lost tribe of Israel looking for a place to call home with John St. Ongicheaux leading the way.

[Chizzang]

Uh, the coast will still be the coast...only a mile of so more inland.

Think of the opportunity for equality here...the richest bastages, those who usually own the prime beachfront properties, will be out of luck. In the meantime, regular Joe, who today owns something a mile from the beach, will be sitting pretty.

Why are you against the little guy?

Have you ever been to JSO's Louisiana? The highest point is 535 feet above sea level and the mean elevation is 100 feet. The state is a giant sponge. If it floods, we'll have a bunch of zydeco listenin', gumbo munchin' Cajuns wandering the earth like a lost tribe of Israel looking for a place to call home with John St. Ongicheaux leading the way.

They used to say something kinda like this ^ about California
It was trendy to say: "When California falls into the sea... blah blah" and then something about Hippies and Liberals and more Blah Blah

But holy shrimp sh!t Trombone Charley
Californians are one thing but Cajuns are ridiculous
we don't want no Cajuns up here (thank you)

They don't even speak English

[ASUMountaineer]

This debate is moot.

Until we come around to the idea that nuclear power is the only way forward, we will NEVER get off the hydrocarbons.

Admiral Rickover's Navy perfected miniaturized, inherently safe nuclear power in the 1960s, and yet because we are so afraid of boogeymen getting their hands on our uranium and plutonium, we will only allow for HUGE respositories of the fissionable materials. So, we get gigantic nuclear plants that are 1) impossible to make safe from natural disasters, 2) huge risks to the environment because of their scale and 3) very inviting targets for terrorists given the amount of radiation that can be released from just simply cracking them open.

We could power a small city the size of Charleston, SC with just 3-4 navy reactors, and their tiny size would make them easy to super harden. We could literally have enough power to crack enough water to have every single car and truck in the US running on hydrogen fuel cells within 30 years.

But instead, we dicker around with solar and wind that will NEVER make up the gap. They are both hugely inefficient, and do not address one of the largest sources of atmospheric carbon coming from the US.

I have always been a "leave the campsite the way you found it" guy. I have always wondered whether or not we can afford to be wrong on AGW (although I do believe that the people who call it settled science and ridicule real science that refutes AGW are as ignorant as the people who say global warming cannot possibly be anthropogenic- like Rush Limbaugh).

I don't think the question is whether or not we can afford to be wrong- the question is- if global warming is truly anthropogenic and has the potential to make the planet at least less inhabitable to us... then how can we be pragmatic about it? How do we remove the profiteers from the solutions? They will exist in "renewable energy" as much as they do in fossil fuels. In fact, they are already much more dependent on the government tit per kilojoule than oil ever was. I am afraid the cure we come up with will be worse than the disease because it will do nothing to actually combat the climate problem. We'll wreck developed economies for politically correct "cute" solutions without going with less politically savory solutions that will absolutely solve the problem, like nuclear.

I'm totally with Chizz on this. Regardless of where the actual environmental point of no return is, we will never be able to respond to it, and wringing our hands over it is a useless exercise.

That was a brilliant post, CID. Well done, sir.

[ASUMountaineer]

Have you ever been to JSO's Louisiana? The highest point is 535 feet above sea level and the mean elevation is 100 feet. The state is a giant sponge. If it floods, we'll have a bunch of zydeco listenin', gumbo munchin' Cajuns wandering the earth like a lost tribe of Israel looking for a place to call home with John St. Ongicheaux leading the way.

They used to say something kinda like this ^ about California
It was trendy to say: "When California falls into the sea... blah blah" and then something about Hippies and Liberals and more Blah Blah

But holy shrimp sh!t Trombone Charley
Californians are one thing but Cajuns are ridiculous
we don't want no Cajuns up here (thank you)

They don't even speak English

Nonsense, of course they deaux.

[kalm]

How many countries have suffered by improving environmental quality and paying workers more?

(other than the rust belt... )

[kalm]

But this Steyer fellow can deal with his money issues on his own. A bigger issue is that Steyer gives climate skeptics and Republican politicians a bright new face to argue that global warming is merely a ginned-up concern of coastal elites who are out of touch with real, pressing problems. They’ve been successful at marginalizing Al Gore and Michael Bloomberg and various Hollywood celebrities as such already. And now once this summit of “the country’s leading liberal donors” meeting at an “1,800-acre ranch” gets out, the impression will deepen.

That’s the conundrum keeping action on climate change stuck in place: a reliance on elites to do the heavy lifting as the problem continues, which allows the problem to be painted as a frivolous concern of the elite.

If not this, then what, though? Well, the United States loves its goddamn markets, and it looks like this one will be left to the markets. Meaning, there won’t be action on climate change until it really is cheaper to avoid burning hydrocarbons than it is to burn them—and not because of some targeted government subsidy or whatever. Go forth, beloved markets!

http://thebaffler.com/blog/2014/02/clim ... an_we_will" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[houndawg]

Sorry, I'm not with you on the self-loathing thing. If that makes you feel better, hey, self-loathe all you want.

You're idea about how much we can leverage our markets has always been a hallmark of your's, but it just doesn't work. We can't decide the direction and fate of the world simply on the strength of the US market. Again, there does exist a whole world out there that would still exist even if the US market closed its doors and ignored the rest of the world, as you seem to think we should do. And even if we closed our doors, the rest of the world would still try to better themselves and to rise above subsistence living, and we'd be in the same pickle we are today. The Chinese didn't decide to stop living meal to meal and start manufacturing things simply because the US market would buy those things. They did it because they didn't want to live meal to meal anymore.

The irony over the debate of free trade or no free trade is that it isn't a choice - it will happen, eventually, no matter what you choose. It's like a Nash game theory exercise - you're always going to end up there in the end. Pretending it's a choice and pretending that we can turn it on or off at our whim is just pure fancy.

Again, putting words in my mouth.

Funny that me...the progressive is arguing that nations operate from rational self interest here. Kind of like Adam Smith...you know...the grand uncle of capitalism suggested. Again..I think American values of resource management and environmental stewardship are positives that shod be exported abroad. You and the corporations that benefit from deregulation do not. Why do you hate America?

Somebody call a social worker, Gannonandonandon is being horribly abused here

[bluehenbillk]

Can there really be "global warming" and polar vortexes" co-existing?

[ASUMountaineer]

But this Steyer fellow can deal with his money issues on his own. A bigger issue is that Steyer gives climate skeptics and Republican politicians a bright new face to argue that global warming is merely a ginned-up concern of coastal elites who are out of touch with real, pressing problems. They’ve been successful at marginalizing Al Gore and Michael Bloomberg and various Hollywood celebrities as such already. And now once this summit of “the country’s leading liberal donors” meeting at an “1,800-acre ranch” gets out, the impression will deepen.

That’s the conundrum keeping action on climate change stuck in place: a reliance on elites to do the heavy lifting as the problem continues, which allows the problem to be painted as a frivolous concern of the elite.

If not this, then what, though? Well, the United States loves its goddamn markets, and it looks like this one will be left to the markets. Meaning, there won’t be action on climate change until it really is cheaper to avoid burning hydrocarbons than it is to burn them—and not because of some targeted government subsidy or whatever. Go forth, beloved markets!

http://thebaffler.com/blog/2014/02/clim ... an_we_will" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If the environmental types would put nuclear energy on the table, we could make real progress. CID is 100% right, the answer is clear and attainable--it's nuclear energy. I'm not a conk, and my 401k benefits from big oil, but we solve two potential problems by embracing nuclear energy.

[houndawg]

Uh, the coast will still be the coast...only a mile of so more inland.

Think of the opportunity for equality here...the richest bastages, those who usually own the prime beachfront properties, will be out of luck. In the meantime, regular Joe, who today owns something a mile from the beach, will be sitting pretty.

Why are you against the little guy?

Have you ever been to JSO's Louisiana?The highest point is 535 feet above sea level and the mean elevation is 100 feet. The state is a giant sponge. If it floods, we'll have a bunch of zydeco listenin', gumbo munchin' Cajuns wandering the earth like a lost tribe of Israel looking for a place to call home with John St. Ongicheaux leading the way.

I have. Filthiest place I've been. (And Cajun music is not Zydeco).

[houndawg]

http://thebaffler.com/blog/2014/02/clim ... an_we_will" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If the environmental types would put nuclear energy on the table, we could make real progress. CID is 100% right, the answer is clear and attainable--it's nuclear energy. I'm not a conk, and my 401k benefits from big oil, but we solve two potential problems by embracing nuclear energy.

The problem isn't the nuclear energy its the half-wits that insist on siting nuclear plants where they can do the most damage if there is an accident. Like major fault lines. Wonder what public opinion in Japan thinks about nuclear energy now.

[Gil Dobie]

If the environmental types would put nuclear energy on the table, we could make real progress. CID is 100% right, the answer is clear and attainable--it's nuclear energy. I'm not a conk, and my 401k benefits from big oil, but we solve two potential problems by embracing nuclear energy.

The government could focus on how to safely deal with nuclear waste and making nuke energy safer as well.

[ASUMountaineer]

If the environmental types would put nuclear energy on the table, we could make real progress. CID is 100% right, the answer is clear and attainable--it's nuclear energy. I'm not a conk, and my 401k benefits from big oil, but we solve two potential problems by embracing nuclear energy.

The problem isn't the nuclear energy its the half-wits that insist on siting nuclear plants where they can do the most damage if there is an accident. Like major fault lines. Wonder what public opinion in Japan thinks about nuclear energy now.

Well, name-calling aside , that's part of putting it on the table. Discussions need to happen, and there are legitimate debates about where to best place nuclear plants. It seems ridiculous to completely ignore the best solution.

[houndawg]

Steve chased his share of college Republican women back in the day.

So he got houndawg's sloppy seconds?

Yep. They usually asked him if it was in...

[houndawg]

The problem isn't the nuclear energy its the half-wits that insist on siting nuclear plants where they can do the most damage if there is an accident. Like major fault lines. Wonder what public opinion in Japan thinks about nuclear energy now.

Well, name-calling aside , that's part of putting it on the table. Discussions need to happen, and there are legitimate debates about where to best place nuclear plants. It seems ridiculous to completely ignore the best solution.

Name calling is never aside here, its the most important part of this place.

[JohnStOnge]

Does that include human life where a large portion of the world's population lives on the coast? What about modern agriculture, how it's migrated and grown, and the people who rely upon it? Also please calculate for population growth.

No because our species is only about 200,000 years old. I have no concerns about our species being able to adapt to what they are projecting temperature wise, though. We are highly adaptable.

Also I don't think they know that agricultural production will, on balance, go down. If they're right we can expect that some areas will become less productive and other areas will become more productive. If the sea level rise is as projected the population will have to move. But in human terms it will be a slow encroachment.

Someone mentioned Louisiana. In Louisiana the problem of coastal erosion and subsidence has been an issue for decades. People don't like it, but it happens slowly. It's not an "end of the world we can't deal with it" sort of thing.

You also have to look at what the impacts of doing what it would really take to keep what they're projecting from happening would be too. Like you have to ask yourself realistically about the extent to which fossil fuel use can be reduced right now and the extent of impact that would have on climate change if they're completely correct in what they think.