[RD] Global Warming/Climate Change:What are your thoughts II?

[Senethro]

Why do we constantly see the words "consensus" and "settled"? Those are political words and not scientific words.

An insincere point, coming from a creationist.

 

[Lexicus]

Why do we constantly see the words "consensus" and "settled"? Those are political words and not scientific words.

Simple answer is, most people involved in producing media content are not scientifically literate.

 

[onejayhawk]

I didn't say to call them idiots, but I don't see what can be accomplished by trying to reason with them. It's the same situation as trying to argue with a moon landing denier. How are you going to convince one of those people that they are wrong? Most of them have put their feet firmly in their ground because their position feels right to them. Facts don't matter.

Reason is your only weapon. Facts are the only thing that matter.

We have already had two posters indicate that political gain is higher on the priority list than fixing the ecology. That is the subject you need to address first.

J

 

[metalhead]

But you don't seem to agree with the fact that our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to climate change. You say that facts matter, but when presented with facts, all you do is try to obfuscate them.

When you get to the part where you point out that science has proven this to be happening, where the only question up in the air is the degree of damage, and people simply refuse to believe it, reason has failed. I agree there isn't a decent alternative, but I'm comfortable with shaming these people anyways.

 

[Lexicus]

Assuming I'm one of the posters in question, I of course did not say anything remotely like that.

 

[metalhead]

Nobody did. J is playing a shell game. I think his logic is along the lines of, any solution that involves legislation or executive action involves the political process, therefore any call for action is purely political and isn't designed to actually help alleviate the damage.

It's wholly circular logic, intended to relieve him from having to come to terms with the fact that we're reaching the precipice of causing irreversible damage to our planet and civilization.

 

[Lexicus]

Well, if you think about it this is just the logical conclusion of what the Republicans have been doing for years now - de-legitimizing the whole political process and the notion that government can be used to solve problems.

 

[Bootstoots]

Reason is your only weapon. Facts are the only thing that matter.

We have already had two posters indicate that political gain is higher on the priority list than fixing the ecology. That is the subject you need to address first.

J

Although I don't dispute that some people do try to use global warming for political gain, the damage cannot be reduced without large-scale, coordinated efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Efforts of that nature require the engagement of political systems, on all levels ranging from local to international, in order to help solve the problem. It's an externality problem, and this is considered by mainstream economists to be a legitimate reason for government intervention to assign the true cost of the externality (as best it can be determined*) onto the people who are causing the externality.

Right now, the profits from using fossil fuels are privatized but the costs related to the greenhouse gas emissions are socialized. Not doing anything is a form of global socialism, where the world at large (and mostly in the future) foots a big part of the bill for some deadbeat emitters who are now getting away with paying only a fraction of the cost of their emissions, thereby redistributing wealth from the whole world in the future to some people in the present.

Do you dispute this? If so, please explain what your disagreement is, and also what sorts of approaches you would prefer to see in response to global warming.



*I'm more than willing to assume a more conservative than average cost here, with estimates coming from lowish projections rather than the median ones. I prefer a carbon tax with rebate, but cap-and-trade is fine too as long as it gets the job done. Point is: there needs to be a price on carbon emissions for straightforward economic reasons related to the property rights of people in low-emission areas and in the future.

 

[Lexicus]

Although I don't dispute that some people do try to use global warming for political gain,

The amusing thing is that this is true of, almost literally, any other issue you could possibly imagine. For example, there were lots of people prepared to use 9/11 for political gain. I can only hope that, for the sake of consistency, jay was sympathetic to denying 9/11 actually happened or at least denying that it represented a particularly urgent problem because there were plenty who stood to gain politically from it.

 

[onejayhawk]

Although I don't dispute that some people do try to use global warming for political gain, the damage cannot be reduced without large-scale, coordinated efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Efforts of that nature require the engagement of political systems, on all levels ranging from local to international, in order to help solve the problem. It's an externality problem, and this is considered by mainstream economists to be a legitimate reason for government intervention to assign the true cost of the externality (as best it can be determined*) onto the people who are causing the externality.

Right now, the profits from using fossil fuels are privatized but the costs related to the greenhouse gas emissions are socialized. Not doing anything is a form of global socialism, where the world at large (and mostly in the future) foots a big part of the bill for some deadbeat emitters who are now getting away with paying only a fraction of the cost of their emissions, thereby redistributing wealth from the whole world in the future to some people in the present.

Do you dispute this? If so, please explain what your disagreement is, and also what sorts of approaches you would prefer to see in response to global warming.

*I'm more than willing to assume a more conservative than average cost here, with estimates coming from lowish projections rather than the median ones. I prefer a carbon tax with rebate, but cap-and-trade is fine too as long as it gets the job done. Point is: there needs to be a price on carbon emissions for straightforward economic reasons related to the property rights of people in low-emission areas and in the future.

I suggest you re-examine this entire post in the light of political reality. The well is poisoned. it will be some time before it is again drinkable.

J

 

[Bootstoots]

Well yes, the political reality is that it's hard to do anything sensible on the topic, particularly in the US, Canada, and Australia, the three advanced economies (excluding a few petrostates like Qatar and the UAE) with the highest emissions per capita. I do think that Al Gore's attempt to become the world's leading global warming spokesman was a serious political blunder that helped to turn this into a partisan issue, although obviously the business interests who promote climate change denial/pseudoskepticism are a huge part of the problem as well.

Let's pretend the political well isn't poisoned. If Al Gore hadn't gotten involved and there were no climate change protesters or anyone else who annoyed you on the topic, and the discussion were totally rational and focused on the science, then what would you favor doing? I'm all ears.

Please actually think about this - don't just dismiss it out of hand.

 

[El_Machinae]

Given that a large portion of the population actively does not understand the more basic parts of AGW concerns or mitigation solutions, I'm pretty sure that the poisoning of the well isn't one dimensional.

How do you have a conversation with "Mars is warming too!"? I mean, the specific concern can be rebutted, and has been rebutted since ~2009. But there's a reason the objection propagates still, and I don't think it's people concerned about AGW.

 

[onejayhawk]

Well yes, the political reality is that it's hard to do anything sensible on the topic, particularly in the US, Canada, and Australia, the three advanced economies (excluding a few petrostates like Qatar and the UAE) with the highest emissions per capita. I do think that Al Gore's attempt to become the world's leading global warming spokesman was a serious political blunder that helped to turn this into a partisan issue, although obviously the business interests who promote climate change denial/pseudoskepticism are a huge part of the problem as well.

Let's pretend the political well isn't poisoned. If Al Gore hadn't gotten involved and there were no climate change protesters or anyone else who annoyed you on the topic, and the discussion were totally rational and focused on the science, then what would you favor doing? I'm all ears.

Please actually think about this - don't just dismiss it out of hand.

In those countries, you are preaching to the choir and getting nowhere. You should start on the harder nuts. USA will not bite the bullet hard if, say, China does not.

I am not sure what you are asking to consider. In a vacuum, you can mandate mass transit, air scrubbing filters, solar, wind and tide power. It's purely an intellectual exercise. What you need is an objective that is achievable and method to achieve it. What you have is a list for Santa Claus.

J

 

[El_Machinae]

China seems to be biting pretty hard.

Your list is a wishlist of technologies. It's not a proposal for how to get from A to B fairly.

 

[onejayhawk]

Your list is a wishlist of technologies. It's not a proposal for how to get from A to B fairly.

There is a wishlist of tech, but that is not the list you are promoting. Your list is for implementation--here's the kicker--regardless of cost. In a sense, I can understand that. Academia is called an ivory tower for a reason. Practical considerations tend to be secondary. The practical fallout is what is biting you in the gluteus. Every attempt to meet you halfway is rebuffed.

For example--clean coal.

J

 

[El_Machinae]

Not at all. And you're strawmanning. Our list is like your list. But we have a mechanism for implementation. I literally think that the political Right has a mechanism by which the innovations are encouraged and then implemented. I literally think that the political Right has no mechanism by which people shift their consumption pattens to buy time while the technologies proceed.

Where's the halfway compromise? What are you thinking of? What olive branch has been offered?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Well, if you think about it this is just the logical conclusion of what the Republicans have been doing for years now - de-legitimizing the whole political process and the notion that government can be used to solve problems.

The political process has done a better job of that than either party. Its track record is a little less slippery than that of individual candidates, in part because blame for its failings is slippery instead.

If Al Gore hadn't gotten involved and there were no climate change protesters or anyone else who annoyed you on the topic, and the discussion were totally rational and focused on the science, then what would you favor doing? I'm all ears.

Our information presented and bias of hearing it would be completely different if it were never partisan. It's hard to look at the data and make conclusions without partisan influence, and I'm not so overconfident as to believe I'm not being influenced when I try.

A good question is "what can we do". I favor something that I can anticipate actually happening that has sufficient benefits to be worth the effort, but struggle to predict what actually is feasible, especially in a scenario where this didn't become a political issue.

 

[Lexicus]

The political process has done a better job of that than either party. Its track record is a little less slippery than that of individual candidates, in part because blame for its failings is slippery instead.

The idea that Al Gore made this a political issue is complete nonsense, particularly in light of the fact that Exxon's scientists knew about it by the early 80s and kept it quiet so they could keep selling oil.

 

[Bootstoots]

I am not sure what you are asking to consider. In a vacuum, you can mandate mass transit, air scrubbing filters, solar, wind and tide power. It's purely an intellectual exercise. What you need is an objective that is achievable and method to achieve it. What you have is a list for Santa Claus.

J

Okay, that's a start. We already have mass transit being slowly expanded in cities, along with a fairly rapid increase in deployment of solar and wind (especially the latter). I would advocate for further subsidized buildout of all of these along with a big initiative targeting energy storage. The amounts of energy we could get from solar are very large - easily enough to power the whole country - but obviously it comes only during the day when it's clear. Whether we can eventually get near 100% renewables in the electric supply will depend crucially on whether it's feasible to store enough energy to do so, whether through pumped hydro, hydrogen storage, batteries, etc. The costs may be an issue, but this is a fantastically good investment. Getting the energy system to be sustainable is one of the biggest problems of the 21st century.

What's politically impossible at the moment is either a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade program. That's a big problem, but this doesn't mean we can't address the less controversial stuff like continuing to build out renewable energy technology and mass transit systems.

 

[onejayhawk]

Not at all. And you're strawmanning. Our list is like your list. But we have a mechanism for implementation. I literally think that the political Right has a mechanism by which the innovations are encouraged and then implemented. I literally think that the political Right has no mechanism by which people shift their consumption pattens to buy time while the technologies proceed.

Where's the halfway compromise? What are you thinking of? What olive branch has been offered?

Clean coal is such an olive branch, which is why I mentioned it.

I can see you fail to understand the gesture.

J