|
another page arguing 'bout numbers and data, what do you get another year older and deeper in debt start carin' bout systems you can't understand 'fore you turn it into a wasteland can you dig it
|
#
?
May 19, 2018 04:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 19:59 |
|
|
self unaware posted:thats literally what a carbon tax is. again, if you can't understand that "putting a price on an externality" is not the same thing as "putting a price on an externality sufficient that we can reverse every negative consequence".
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2018 04:52
|
|
|
Here's a number: California already has a cap and trade system in place and the market price is ~$15/MT-equivalent. It is not high enough to move the needle on energy efficiency projects for large emitters.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2018 06:35
|
|
|
spf3million posted:Here's a number: California already has a cap and trade system in place and the market price is ~$15/MT-equivalent. It is not high enough to move the needle on energy efficiency projects for large emitters. California's system also gave away far too many freebie credits which crashed the price and vastly limited the effectiveness of the marketplace.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2018 06:49
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:According to who? Which climate scientists are you following here who advance this view? And by what standard? What specific level of precision do you need? And does this apply to all tipping points equally? I get the impression you are making up an arbitrary and self-serving standard as you go along. Do you feel confident in saying that we do in fact have enough of an understanding of the climate that it enables us to set a multidecadal timetable for dealing with climate change? (A timetable that includes climate change effects obviously, not just human actions.) I, and most of the people arguing with you, don't - which is why we fall back on "Better not risk it then". To put it in an analogy, it's Russian roulette, but the revolver has an unknown number of chambers and bullets, so the safest option is to stop playing as soon as possible - not attempt to game the system because we can see half of the first 50 chambers and only 1 of them is a bullet.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2018 07:11
|
|
|
1) Ban all cash transactions. 2) Associate every credit/debit card to a SSN or a company registration number. 3) Mandate all companies to send a detailed record of every transaction made by every individual to the IRS. 4) Develop an algorithm that translates this into a carbon score per person per year, based on the carbon intensivity of the goods/services they bought. 5) Use this carbon score as the basis for a progressive carbon tax with brackets. Its rate is harsher for businesses than for people. 6) (maybe?) Every year there is a lottery of sorts where a bunch of names are drawn out at random, where the probability of being drawn is a function of your carbon score. The selected people then fight to the death in a high-tech arena and the winner is named Carbon Lord
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2018 07:42
|
|
|
twodot posted:I understand those two are different. I'm saying the first one is stupid, unless your goal is to fix the externality, and then you would be doing the second one. If you want to tax carbon to prevent carbon usage and fund good programs, set a tax rate that let's you achieves those goals, and ignore the price of externalities. If your goal is to fix externalities, set a prices that lets you fix externalities and fix them. What's hard about this? i'm telling you the way to point b is through point a and all you can do is scream that point a isn't worth it if it's not point b my goal is not to "fix externalities" by instituting a carbon tax, it's to put a price on carbon dioxide emissions, which is an externality. the "right" price is the one that leads to the correct emissions reductions, not whatever price lets you recapture the carbon. it's ok for humanity to emit carbon, just not as much as we do now climate change is going to take trillions of dollars to solve. the fact that we can't magically create that sort of political and economic will into existence today doesn't mean we shouldn't start somewhere 90s Rememberer fucked around with this message at 08:01 on May 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2018 07:58
|
|
|
Don't need to ban cash transactions. The lack of transfer of carbon footprint in a seller's ongoing ledger would be motive enough for them to try to use recorded transactions. Wait you weren't serious
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2018 16:05
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Don't need to ban cash transactions. The lack of transfer of carbon footprint in a seller's ongoing ledger would be motive enough for them to try to use recorded transactions. This is a great idea! An alternative could also be to set up a system wherein buyers would have to be identified by their ID/SSN before they can pay cash for anything.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2018 16:36
|
|
|
self unaware posted:i'm telling you the way to point b is through point a and all you can do is scream that point a isn't worth it if it's not point b self unaware posted:you don't need to ban beef, air travel, cars, coal, oil or natural gas edit: Like you just can't openly say your goal isn't to fix externalities and also think pricing in externalities is a good strategy, what possible reason could you have for doing that? twodot fucked around with this message at 17:19 on May 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2018 17:15
|
|
|
New member here... I've thought about the issue of climate change a lot, so I figured I might share a few of my thoughts. I'm not a climate scientist and I happily defer to experts in fields outside of my expertise. Still, I feel like there are some reasonable questions that ought to be seriously addressed by proponents of government action designed to combat the negative effects of climate change. These questions are very rarely, if ever, addressed from my reading on the subject. I've noticed so often in debates on this subject that proponents of urgent action to ameliorate the effects of anthropogenic climate change like to cite peer-reviewed scientific journals and climate models that they themselves haven't read and/or can't comprehend. It's an appeal to authority intended to end further debate from the "skeptic". But even for the untrained layman, I think it's possible to get a reasonable sense of the general consensus among experts in the field. But having the debate begin and end by appealing to the authority of climate scientists is insufficient. Climate scientists can explain the relationship between natural phenomenon and make predictions, of widely varying reliability, about future temperatures and the negative externalities to human well-being they believe will result. Fair enough. But if you propose that humans actually do anything as a result of the facts that are provided by climate scientists, especially if you favor government action, you really need to consider the disciplines of economics, political theory and possibly even sociology. I'm not going to dispute the climate science here, and I'm willing to stipulate that the latest IPCC report represents the agreed-upon consensus among experts in the field. Yet the argument for government action aimed at curbing CO2 emissions in the hopes of reducing the future harm caused by climate change (rising sea levels, larger and more frequent hurricanes, etc) requires a more complete justification that takes into account relevant fields outside of the natural sciences. On the economics... First, some facts that are relevant to this discussion. Since all proposals to combat climate change entail a large and immediate reduction of CO2 emissions, our use of fossil fuel would have to drop substantially. So how much of our current energy needs are being satisfied by fossil fuels? Here are the latest statistics that I could find for the percent use of fossil fuels by the major countries: China: 87% Canada: 73% Japan: 94% Russia: 90% United States: 83% Here is the link where I found this data: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.COMM.FO.ZS?end=2014&locations=CN-RU&start=1971 Here are the latest statistics for the percent use of renewable energy by the major countries: China: 12% Canada: 22% Japan: 6% Russia: 3% United States: 9% With current technology, it doesn't seem feasible that renewable energy could fully replace fossil fuels while maintaining the current standard of living for the world's populations. Wind and Solar, in particular, have a problem with intermittancy and thus require a backup source that currently relies on fossil fuels. It has to be noted that even our current levels of renewable energy consumption rely on heavy government subsidization. Wind, as a single example, receives $176 Billion dollars worth of subsidization per year, yet accounts for something like 2-3% of our total energy usage: https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/06/wind-energy-subsidies-billions/ Energy technology that is genuinely ready to displace fossil fuels wouldn't require the level of government subsidization that wind and solar enjoy. Okay, so how much reduction in fossil fuel use would be required to keep warming under the 2 degree Celcius threshold that has been proposed? The argument: "This final installment, focused on mitigating climate change, says that in order to keep warming under the 2°C (3.6°F) threshold agreed on by the world’s governments at a 2009 meeting in Copenhagen, greenhouse gas emissions in 2050 will have to be 40 to 70 percent lower than what they were in 2010. By the end of the century, they will need to be at zero, or could possibly even require taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, a controversial proposition." That is a dramatic decrease that is expected in only 32 years. Given the percent of worldwide energy that is derived from renewable energy sources, it is clear that we don't have a viable and immediate replacement for fossil fuels if we try to meet the 2% theshold. Naturally, this would mean that we'd have to have a dramatic reduction in our living standards. Following the logic thus far? Okay, the economic argument is about trade-offs. A serious cost and benefit analysis is required to determine whether a serious reduction in living standards and an intentional retardation of the growth of emerging economies would be offset by the mitigation of climate externalities in 50 to 100 years. Consider two scenarios: In the first place, imagine governments imposed no restrictions at all on the unlimited production of any and all energy sources (except standard contracts and property rights). We'd have as much energy as we'd ever want to expand our economies as fast as we can. We'd grow more prosperous faster than we otherwise would. Hospitals would be built that otherwise would not, new factories would be constructed and living standards would rise faster. A greater percentage of the third world would move into the middle class, children who otherwise would have starved or died from disease would survive. Yet, we'd emit much more CO2 in the short term. This would mean that we'd see worse negative externalities in the future. Specifically, stronger storms, a sea level that rises higher and faster, and other unpleasant natural disasters. Second scenario, consider that we reduced fossil fuel emissions to the extent that we'd need to in order to meet the 2 degree Celcius threshold. Compared to what otherwise would happen, the world would be a much poorer place in the immediate future. New hospitals wouldn't be built, fewer goods and services would be produced, agriculture would be diminished and the third world would remain in poverty longer than otherwise would be the case. Many people would die who otherwise would have survived. On the plus side, less CO2 emissions in the present means that we could lessen the negative climate externalities that climate models predict in the future. Do you understand how only an economic analysis can begin to assess which scenario is truly better from the perspective of human welfare? After all, a more prosperous society is far better able to adapt to a changing climate. Even if we experience rising sea levels that cause migration inland for a lot of people around the world, or larger, more powerful hurricanes and tornadoes, it is entirely conceivable that the increased wealth brought about by unrestricted economic growth would outweigh the costs of these externalities. I'm not saying this WOULD be the case, but this elementary economic analysis is never even considered in this debate. My question is how do you know for certain that the economic costs of unmitigated climate change won't be offset by uninhibited economic growth that produces a far wealthier society better able to adapt to a changing climate? On political science... A lot of serious thinkers have analyzed the nature of political power, the State apparatus and the incentive structures built in to them. One person I've learned a lot from is James Buchanan and his Public Choice school of economics. I certainly don't agree with him about everything, but his work in analyzing the often perverse incentives of government agents within the bureaucratic State is second to none. By their nature, politicians have a very high time preference, which means they are wholly incapable (with very few exceptions) of delaying gratification, or doing the right thing even if it is unpopular. What they certainly are incapable of is implementing public policy responsibly over decades when the benefits promised by the program won't be seen during their political career or (likely) their lifetimes. Look at how much Trump has undone of Obama's legacy and it's only been a few short years! He pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord AND the Iran Nuclear Deal. Given everything we know about politics and the State, why would we think they'd be able to do anything useful or effective with regard to mitigating the negative effects of climate change? Okay, I'm done for now. I'm not trying to be perverse by posting this. I'm really playing a devil's advocate role by challenging the prevailing orthodoxy with questions that I haven't seen satisfactory answers to yet.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 09:56
|
|
|
I just saw the image under my user name. I guess it's just a standard image for those who haven't paid for a custom one, but I think it looks out of place given the subject I was talking about. So I want to clarify something... I'm not a Trump lover. I despise the man, never voted for him and I'd be happy if he gets impeached. Not for this Russia collusion bullshit though. If he's impeached, it should be for pulling out of the Iran Nuclear Agreement, moving the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem (thus sanctioning Israeli brutality against Palestinians) and for his bombing of Syria and the broader middle east. Those are impeachable offenses in my view.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 10:02
|
|
|
The Devil needs no advocate, Trump lover.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 11:34
|
|
|
Why would you spend  just to post in this thread with a new account.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 12:24
|
|
|
Hello fellow teens on this forum I have never posted on and don’t know how works, I’m real talk and I’m just here to ask some questions
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 13:35
|
|
|
Just lol if you don't have a shell-accounts lying around from 2002 to troll unpopular D&D threads.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 13:41
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:sophomoric neoliberal mansplaining https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xy6Ak1DYReI
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 14:43
|
|
|
wasn't there a study that calculated climate change would be a 2% drag on US GDP by 2100?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 14:50
|
|
|
80 years from now.... I feel like that's pretty optimistic
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 14:53
|
|
|
What is the total productivity of the coral reef ecosystem worth? If we go beyond 2 degrees inside 100 years coral will be effectively extinct.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 14:57
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Hello fellow teens on this forum I have never posted on I don't know, he sounds very like jrodefeld.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 14:59
|
|
|
Real talk I think your fundamental error is assuming nobody has thought about this before you. The economic effects are going to be catastrophic and that's just taken as a given. There's no way to grow yourself out of collapsing fisheries and massive refugee flows. There's no way 1% additional gdp growth in the US compensates for the loss of the California agricultural industry or the evacuation of southern Florida. Besides, why should we care if gdp grows in the first place if it only means Jeff Bezos gets to buy two islands this year? It's kind of laughable to suggest that growth sets you free on the backdrop of immiseration of the middle class. If we do nothing, the world will be a worse place to live in, faster, but don't worry because a tiny subset of humanity will realize marginally higher wealth. That's what your argument sounds like to me. Oh and btw climate change doesn't just stop by itself in the medium term, it will last ten thousand years so think about the magnitude of the crime we're committing against our descendants in order to marginally enrich the already very wealthy. This is not a hypothetical, we've been trying It your way the last 40 years. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 15:09 on May 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 15:06
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:using gdp opportunity cost as concern troll for climate change is the epitome of not getting it this post ^ will be one year old tomorrow
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 15:17
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:If you're <25 then your ill-formed brain can probably still be worked with, but if this post was the result of a fully formed adult then I'm sorry its too late we have to reclaim your water. I have a better one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe1-bx8oFN4
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 15:22
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Real talk I think your fundamental error is assuming nobody has thought about this before you. The economic effects are going to be catastrophic and that's just taken as a given. There's no way to grow yourself out of collapsing fisheries and massive refugee flows. There's no way 1% additional gdp growth in the US compensates for the loss of the California agricultural industry or the evacuation of southern Florida. I don't see why this is necessarily true. We went through incredible crises during the 20th century that destroyed huge amounts of both human life and money and still managed to keep an overall trend of positive growth. Two world wars, the Great Depression, the Cold War and the collapse of the Eastern bloc. These were already catastrophic events. That said, I don't really know what climate will do to the economy, and it's an open question whether economic growth can outpace the damage done by climate change. I don't think we can predict what it will do next month, let alone decades or centuries down the road. But there's nothing self-evident about climate change that says it's a crisis that cannot be overcome. People just list arbitrary pick something like collapsing fisheries and say it's impossible to overcome. Why? We've already gone from 7% to over 40% of fisheries producing from aquaculture rather than wild catch, and that trend of growth is slated to continue for decades to come. Collapsing fisheries would just accelerate the transition.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 16:38
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:Even if we experience rising sea levels that cause migration inland for a lot of people around the world, or larger, more powerful hurricanes and tornadoes, it is entirely conceivable that the increased wealth brought about by unrestricted economic growth would outweigh the costs of these externalities. Jesus loving christ!
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 17:28
|
|
|
Perry Mason Jar posted:Jesus loving christ! No, really, it's OK. If New York City goes underwater we can just relocate everyone to the spare New York City we built in case of such a scenario.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 17:51
|
|
|
We should be very careful, though. We only built, like, two emergency New York Cities. So even if the other one gets ravaged by tornadoes or ends up in a dustbowl or whatever we should still think long and hard about whether we really, truly want to use our last and final back-up New York City.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 17:54
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:If you're <25 then your ill-formed brain can probably still be worked with, but if this post was the result of a fully formed adult then I'm sorry its too late we have to reclaim your water. It's funny that you characterized what I was saying as "mansplaining". Maybe gender politics have something to do with climate change? That's a new one to me. Yeah, I'm older than 25, but I have a problem though where I can't stay within an echo chamber. I like to poke around different corners of the internet and in real life, where people hold different views than the ones I hold. Whatever else you might say about it, the questions I posed certainly merit a response.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 18:10
|
|
|
They merit exactly the response you've recieved thus far, and not much else.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 18:12
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:Yeah, I'm older than 25, but I have a problem though where I can't stay within an echo chamber. I like to poke around different corners of the internet and in real life, where people hold different views than the ones I hold. Didn't you start out by saying you were just playing devil's advocate? Are you changing your story already?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 18:13
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:What is the total productivity of the coral reef ecosystem worth? If we go beyond 2 degrees inside 100 years coral will be effectively extinct. Can you link to the science behind that claim? I'm not saying it's not true, I just want more information. Maybe you need to re-read my post but it seems like you don't really understand the sacrifice to human welfare that would be required to meet the 2 degree threshold. Maybe this sacrifice would be worth it, but climate activists act as though we could immediately switch our entire economy over to renewable energy and dramatically cut or eliminate fossil fuel use in the very near future with negligible effects on our standard of living. This is disingenuous. When I've discussed this subject in the past, I routinely see people cherry-pick studies based on climate-models that are clearly outliers among the scientific literature. If we're being honest, we have to look at the things that most climate scientists agree on. If the consensus among climate scientists is that the ocean will rise 1-2 inches over the next century, and one report claims that the ocean could rise 10 inches, it would be irresponsible to grab a bullhorn and yell at everyone that "the oceans will rise 10 inches over the next century without immediate action!" I doubt a scientific paper exists that postulates the extinction of coral over the next century if warming exceeds 2 degrees Celcius. I'd be happy to be proven wrong if you could produce the documentation to verify these claims.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 18:22
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:It's funny that you characterized what I was saying as "mansplaining". Maybe gender politics have something to do with climate change? That's a new one to me. i'm sorry you were bloviating so hard I assumed your gender I honestly have no idea what to do with people like you. If there's one thing this threads hundreds of pages are a testament to, its that words in posts are just not up to the task. All of your questions have been debated for pages and pages. Not that I think you should go back and read a few hundred pages, I wouldn't wish that on someone, but people like you are at best years away from unpacking the layers of ideology and defense mechanisms it takes to wrap your brain around this. Very probably never, we're just going to have to raise a new generation to be hair-on-fire alarmist to compensate. quote:Whatever else you might say about it, the questions I posed certainly merit a response.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 18:29
|
|
|
Warming and sea-level are not equally distributed. That's a major source of ambiguity regarding forecasts. That said, we're still staring down crisis. With regards to corals and sea-level rises... Article: Since 2016, Half of All Coral in the Great Barrier Reef Has Died From: The Atlantic Date: 2018 APR 18 quote:... Article: Flooding Hot Spots: Why Seas Are Rising Faster on the U.S. East Coast From: Yale Environment 360 Date: 2018 APR 24 quote:One study published last year shows that from 2011 to 2015, sea level rose up to 5 inches — an inch per year — in some locales from North Carolina to Florida. tl;dr - poo poo's hosed, mate.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 18:40
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Real talk I think your fundamental error is assuming nobody has thought about this before you. The economic effects are going to be catastrophic and that's just taken as a given. There's no way to grow yourself out of collapsing fisheries and massive refugee flows. There's no way 1% additional gdp growth in the US compensates for the loss of the California agricultural industry or the evacuation of southern Florida. The economic effects are "going to be catastrophic and that's just taken as a given"? No, it shouldn't be taken as a given. It might well be true but you still have to provide evidence and, most importantly, consider a complex cost-and-benefit analysis taking into account not just the seen, but also the unseen (per Bastiat). I'd love for someone to quibble with the numbers I cited in my post so we could get down to the nitty gritty on this subject. I clearly posted the current levels of fossil fuel use by the largest countries in the world. Then I listed the current percent use of renewable energy by these same countries. From this pro-Climate Change website: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/major-greenhouse-gas-reductions-needed-to-curtail-climate-change-ipcc-17300 "This final installment, focused on mitigating climate change, says that in order to keep warming under the 2°C (3.6°F) threshold agreed on by the world’s governments at a 2009 meeting in Copenhagen, greenhouse gas emissions in 2050 will have to be 40 to 70 percent lower than what they were in 2010. By the end of the century, they will need to be at zero, or could possibly even require taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, a controversial proposition." Greenhouse gas emissions need to be 40 to 70% lower by 2050 than they were in 2010 to keep to the 2 degree Celcius threshold. Do you agree that with current technology, renewable energy sources cannot possibly fully replace fossil fuels if we reduce them as dramatically as would be required? Higher energy costs and reduced energy consumption would affect the poor and middle class the most. Jeff Bezos could stand a reduction in his living standards far better than could someone who's barely surviving. And what about developing nations that are in the process of industrialization, with millions moving from rural areas into cities to work at factory jobs? They are moving from grinding poverty into the middle class. What happens if these factories are shut down and further economic development is halted? Every aspect of our economic growth and our living standards is predicated at some level on access to cheap, abundant and scalable energy sources. Energy economist Robert P. Murphy wrote a relevant article on the chasm between the rhetoric on climate change and actual predicted harm and cost to humanity: "It's understandable that the public has no idea of the real state of the literature on climate change policy, because even professional economists use utterly misleading rhetoric in this arena. To show what I mean, first, let’s quote from a recent Noah Smith Bloomberg article, which urges left-liberals to support the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal: One of the bigger economic issues under debate right now is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the multilateral trade deal that would include most countries in the Asia-Pacific region as well as the US. Many people both here and abroad are suspicious of trade deals, while economists usually support them. This time around, however, the dynamic is a little bit different — the TPP is getting some pushback from left-leaning economists such as Paul Krugman. Krugman’s point is that since US trade is already pretty liberalized … the effect of further liberalization will be small.… I’m usually more of a free-trade skeptic than the average economist.… But in this case, I’m strongly on the pro-TPP side. There are just too many good arguments in favor. University of California-Berkeley economist Brad DeLong does some quick back-of-the-envelope calculations, and estimates that the TPP would increase the world’s wealth by a total of $3 trillion. Though that’s not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, it’s one of the best reforms that’s feasible in the current polarized political situation. (emphasis added) To summarize the flavor of Smith’s discussion, he thinks the TPP is “one of the bigger economic issues” today, and that its potential windfall to humanity of $3 trillion is “not a big deal in the grand scheme of things” but certainly worth pursuing if attainable. Krugman disagrees with Smith’s assessment, but their differences are clearly quibbles over numbers and strategies; it’s not as if Smith thinks Krugman is a “Ricardo denier” or accuses Krugman of hating poor Asians by opposing the trade deal. We get a much different tone if instead we look at Smith discussing climate-change policy. For example, in June 2014, Smith wrote a Bloomberg piece on five ways to fight global warming. In the interest of brevity, let me simply quote Smith’s concluding paragraph: If we do these five things, then the US can still save the world from global warming, even though we’re no longer the main cause of the problem. And the short-run cost to our economy will be very moderate. Saving the world on the cheap sounds like a good idea to me. (emphasis added) Clearly, there is a chasm in the rhetoric between Smith’s two Bloomberg pieces. When discussing the TPP, it’s an honest disagreement between experts over a trade agreement that Smith thinks is definitely worthwhile, but in the grand scheme is not that big a deal. In contrast, government policies concerning climate change literally involve the fate of the planet. At this point, most readers would wonder what the problem is. After all, isn’t man-made climate change a global crisis? Why shouldn’t Smith use much stronger rhetoric when describing it? I am making this comparison because according to one of the pioneers in climate-change economics, William Nordhaus, even if all governments around the world implemented the textbook-perfect carbon tax, the net gain to humanity would be … drumroll please … $3 trillion. In other words, one of the world’s experts on the economics of climate change estimates that the difference to humanity between (a) implementing the perfect carbon-tax policy solution and (b) doing absolutely nothing was about the same difference as DeLong estimated when it comes to the TPP." https://fee.org/articles/the-costs-of-hysteria/ Later in the article Murphy makes this salient point: "Nordhaus evaluated Al Gore’s suggestion to cut emissions by 90 percent, and estimated that it would make humanity some $21 trillion poorer compared to the do-nothing baseline — a net harm seven times greater than the net benefits of the textbook-optimal approach." Even if you take the IPCC report and leading climate models as the objective truth regarding the science, it is absolutely valid to consider whether State action (depending on what policy is proposed) will cause more harm than benefit from the perspective of human welfare.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 18:56
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:Even if you take the IPCC report and leading climate models as the objective truth regarding the science, it is absolutely valid to consider whether State action (depending on what policy is proposed) will cause more harm than benefit from the perspective of human welfare. Well the current plan seems to be to let the third world get hosed, so we can agree on that point at least.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 19:00
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:A sales tax on food, transportation and heat and electricity would be just about the most regressive tax someone could design. But conservatives killed the idea of Cap And Trade, an capitalist idea invented by a lawyer in the Reagan Admin, because Al Gore. Forgive me if I question their objections to a carbon tax.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 19:08
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:... people like you are at best years away from unpacking the layers of ideology and defense mechanisms it takes to wrap your brain around this. Very probably never, we're just going to have to raise a new generation to be hair-on-fire alarmist to compensate. RealTalk posted:Even if you take the IPCC report and leading climate models as the objective truth regarding the science, it is absolutely valid to consider whether State action (depending on what policy is proposed) will cause more harm than benefit from the perspective of human welfare.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 19:08
|
|
|
sitchensis posted:No, really, it's OK. If New York City goes underwater we can just relocate everyone to the spare New York City we built in case of such a scenario. The problem people have with climate change is that they don't understand the timescales and how they interact with our responses to it. New Yorkers don't wake up overnight and find themselves underwater. They see the sea level is rising and they scramble to implement ways to stave it off. They raise their ports and critical facilities in repeated projects to outrun the rising times. They erect sea walls to hold back the waves. They'll implement flood-control measures to withstand the increasingly-dangerous storms. And in the end, they'll all fail. The seas will rise faster than we can deal with, and they will reclaim the areas affected by sea level rise. As they slowly rise over the decades, people will migrate out of the city to the mainland, the same way their grandparents migrated from all over the world to come to New York. The land won't survive, but the city, or at least the metropolitan area, will. Not everywhere is like NYC. People in Bangladesh, the Netherlands, and especially small Pacific islands are going to feel the impact of SLR a lot more than others. And the rate of rise is going to determine a lot about how successful we are at adapting to it. But yeah, we will relocate people to "the spare New York", in more or less exactly the same process that got them to New York in the first place.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 19:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 19:59 |
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:yep, confirmed. we've got our selves a market-wahhabist Why even both reading that guy's giant walls of text?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2018 19:18
|
|