'Whatever happened to global warming?'

[Dick Whitman]

Why this change matters to people in US cities and highlands who could care less about crashing waves is because it is changing food supply crops and economies.

Because even if all that is true, and it affects those things, there is still economic evidence that the benefits that a developed nation like the United States that relies on fossil fuel-based industry would reap would not match the costs it would have to pay to rearrange its economy to deal with climate change via something like a carbon tax. Quite simply, we would not be getting back what we pay for.

 

[User 11148]

Suppose the U.S. and the "rest of the West" caps CO2 emissions (on an absolute, not per-capita, basis) where they are right now. Suppose China and India decide not to come along. Assuming that anthropogenic global warming is the existential threat it is being sold as, would it be OK to go to war to enforce caps on China and India?

 

[Evil Bastard (aka Chris_L)]

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

And that some people think global warming means less snow in their driveway.

 

[CarltonBanks]

I have lived in a 1906 house beside the Ches Bay for 14 years. We have a low entrance road and it floods out two or three times per year in storms. This past year this road has flooded out (and is thereby impassible unless you want to wash your car in a salt acid bath) 17 times. Sea level rise is now a very serious waterside issue to the extent that it now affects real estate contracts and insurance policies. I can't tell you how disheartening it is to hear the night-time crashing waves knowing that it is eating your house-land away. What is most frightening is how quickly and violently this change is happening. Why this change matters to people in US cities and highlands who could care less about crashing waves is because it is changing food supply crops and economies. If you deny that world wide carbon emissions are contributing to this change then you have either money interests or else psychological problems. I'm not sure which is worse, hearing the night waves crash or watching the US idiot public politicians sandbag against the evidence of science and the wisdom of the rest of the world.

I want to see the undeniable proof that carbon emissions are causing the waves to erode your property. This "Evidence of the science and the wisdom of the rest of the world" is very much in dispute. The IPCC has admitted a ton of fraudulent studies and there is plenty of proof that carbon emissions have nothing to do with climate change.

As for the erosion...erosion has been happening since the beginning of time. Of course things are worse now than when you moved in...there has been 14 years worth of erosion changing the shore. Ruling out natural erosion is just as silly as ruling out climate change...as I have said numerous times on this thread, there needs to be an INDEPENDENT study with all sides contributing instead of a worldwide panel of alarmists who came to the party with a foregone conclusion.

 

[Evil Bastard (aka Chris_L)]

And that some people think global warming means less snow in their driveway.

And being able to swim in the Atlantic in Maine. Too damn cold to do that now.

 

[Crash]

You know, even if you don't believe in climate change, it seems pretty obvious that just from an economic standpoint it makes sense to move toward sustainable, renewable energy sources. The rest of the world is doing it, and unless we're going to sit back and bang our heads against walls for the next 100 years, we better get on the train (or better yet, start driving it).

Not long ago, Joe Biden made the point that it makes no sense to go from dependence on foreign oil now to dependence on foreign windmills or solar panels or whatnot later. We have the natural resources to harness large amounts of renewable, sustainable energy -- enough that eventually we'll be able to power the country on it and likely have enough to sell to other parts of the world. That, to me, makes perfect economic sense. It's long-term, but if we don't make these investments now, it's going to cost us even more in the future. And that doesn't even require the hand-wringing that comes from arguing whether or not climate change is actually real.

 

[Dick Whitman]

If we don't make these investments now, it's going to cost us even more in the future.

Economists would tell you the opposite, actually. It's called "discounting," and it's mostly too complicated for this small brain to comprehend. But the basic gist of it is as follows. Spending money now is silly when that same money, invested, will be worth exponentially more decades from now. And at least at that point, we won't be dealing with climate change uncertainty. And even if you fully support the idea that carbon emissions are causing global warming, as I do, you still have to admit that there's uncertainty. There is a line of thought that spending now would actually be morally wrong because the money will be worth much more in the future and will go a lot further.

I'm probably completely botching the discounting concept, but it's 100 percent mainstream, I swear.

 

[Dick Whitman]

By the way, even with discounting, I think something should be done beginning now. But I also recognize that it isn't as easy as joining Kyoto and shutting down all the emitters. There are a lot of concerns to balance.

 

[Magic In The Night]

****, if the data plays out and carbon emissions are actually a problem there is nothing wrong with what you are saying.

I mean, this gets to the heart of why we won't join Kyoto or any of the other accords. Because we would pay more than we would benefit, because of the way our economy is structured around fossil fuels. Even if one has a moral objection to the United States paying less, I would hope that he could see from a practical standpoint why it is difficult for U.S. policymakers, thinking about their constituents, to sign on to that.

****, regardless of how you or I feel about it, you also have to take into account the fact that there are a lot of people...and I mean A LOT...who do not believe in man-made climate change. Asking these people to pick up the freight for something they do not buy, and have a slew of studies supporting their position to go along with the studies opposing it, would be political suicide. I know there are quite a few people that have ruled out Huntsman and Romney over their climate change views. Same with Chris Christie.

So not only asking these people to stand by and watch their tax dollars be thrown at a problem they do not believe in, and do not feel has even been proved to be a problem, would not be very voter-friendly.

First of all, I appreciate the thread. Good to talk about these things. Second, CB, I did not believe there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and really didn't want any of my tax dollars thrown at that war and we can see how that turned out, trillions later. Having said all that, I've had just about enough of trying to convince people to do something about global warming in this country. They're teaching in the private schools (and who knows, maybe the public ones) that it's not real so there's no fixing things. I know I won't be here to be affected by it but all these schoolkids and other younger people who argue against it will have to deal.

 

[93Devil]

I have lived in a 1906 house beside the Ches Bay for 14 years. We have a low entrance road and it floods out two or three times per year in storms. This past year this road has flooded out (and is thereby impassible unless you want to wash your car in a salt acid bath) 17 times. Sea level rise is now a very serious waterside issue to the extent that it now affects real estate contracts and insurance policies. I can't tell you how disheartening it is to hear the night-time crashing waves knowing that it is eating your house-land away. What is most frightening is how quickly and violently this change is happening. Why this change matters to people in US cities and highlands who could care less about crashing waves is because it is changing food supply crops and economies. If you deny that world wide carbon emissions are contributing to this change then you have either money interests or else psychological problems. I'm not sure which is worse, hearing the night waves crash or watching the US idiot public politicians sandbag against the evidence of science and the wisdom of the rest of the world.

I want to see the undeniable proof that carbon emissions are causing the waves to erode your property. This "Evidence of the science and the wisdom of the rest of the world" is very much in dispute. The IPCC has admitted a ton of fraudulent studies and there is plenty of proof that carbon emissions have nothing to do with climate change.

As for the erosion...erosion has been happening since the beginning of time. Of course things are worse now than when you moved in...there has been 14 years worth of erosion changing the shore. Ruling out natural erosion is just as silly as ruling out climate change...as I have said numerous times on this thread, there needs to be an INDEPENDENT study with all sides contributing instead of a worldwide panel of alarmists who came to the party with a foregone conclusion.

Horse. Water. Drink.

The house has been safe for over a 100 years, and this land for thousands upon thousands of years before that, but now it starts to wash away?

On a related note, isn't the county of Suffolk three feet below sea level?

 

[Azrael]

We could be making money on the development of alternative energy technologies. Instead, we fall farther behind.

www.nuwireinvestor.com/articles/united-states-renewable-energy-sector-is-falling-behind-the-rest-54977.aspx

www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/04/global_competition.html

 

[93Devil]

There is still profit in the ground.

 

[Dick Whitman]

By the way, per the conversation earlier about the U.S. getting subsidized by developing nations for cutting its emissions, let's not completely absolve the third world for global warming. Africa, for example, has shown little problem clearcutting wide swaths of the rain forests in order to turn a buck. That affects greenhouse gas levels just like affirmative emissions do.

 

[CarltonBanks]

I saw a statistic somewhere, can't vouch for its accuracy, that I thought was interesting...if not impossible. This stat claimed there were more trees on North America now than there was 100 years ago. I understand the guidelines that state the lumber industry has to plant one tree for each one it cuts down, but this sounds pretty impossible.

The thing is, the forestry rules about planting a tree when you cut one down is just one example of what I mean by being good stewards of the planet without crippling American industry with significant carbon taxes. There are plenty of common sense rules that could become mandates that cost virtually nothing.

One example of this...Willie, the visiting clubhouse manager at Progressive Field in Cleveland, developed a recycling program for the stadium (from the main concourse to the clobhouses) that was adobted by every team in MLB. There is nothing wrong with making responsible choices and sharing your wisdom. I just think the carbon tax is a terrible idea that would make no difference.

Do I believe in man-made climate change? Heck no. Do I want to leave a cleaner planet for my kids? Of course. We can get there if everyone buys into it...but we won't get there if it looks like a punative tax and people are forced to spend a lot of money on something like this.

Another thing...I grew up on a rural road in Northeast Ohio in the 1970's. There are woods along the road and it used to be a haven for people dumping trash and throwing crap out the window. My friends and I used to take wagons up and down the street, cleaning up garbage (you would be amazed at some of the things we found...but that is another story). Six years ago I moved into a house less than a half-mile from the house I grew up in...same rural road. Now there is almost no trash. The old commercial with the Indian blowing his nose is no longer applicable because I don't think people litter nearly as much. There used to be crap all over the median and alongside the highways...now it looks pretty clean. Am I the only one that thinks this?

 

[Dick Whitman]

Carlton, as far as the trees go, I know for sure that there is far less timber cleared from the national forests today for sale than there was in previous decades. I'm talking drastically less cleared - it peaked in the post-WWII building boom. Even Clinton was frustrated as hell about how the courts handcuffed him from helping the timber industry out.

As far as a carbon tax goes, again, the problem is that industries are dispersing their costs - pollution - on all of us and globally while reaping all of the benefits themselves. That's just not fair from a purely economic standpoint. You should have to internalize all of the costs of your activities. It's like me buying a Mercedes, and having everyone else chip in to pay for it. Of course I'd be wealthy if I didn't have to pay for the full cost of my purchases. That's what industry is able to do.

 

[User 11148]

As far as a carbon tax goes, again, the problem is that industries are dispersing their costs - pollution - on all of us and globally while reaping all of the benefits themselves.

I think that argument, laid out more accurately, is that through industry all of us spew out an externality, to our benefit in the short run but, potentially, to our (or our descendants') harm in the long run. Firms will not pay a carbon tax ... firms will collect a carbon tax.

Re: trees. Ever read about how much effort went into gathering fuel prior to industrialization? I read somewhere that, way back when, the typical pioneer farm family in the U.S. went through something like 20 cords of wood a year just to heat the home and cook the food. That, coupled with how little land (especially in the East/Northeast) is used in farming these days makes me not at all surprised that there are more trees out there.

 

[Dick Whitman]

As far as a carbon tax goes, again, the problem is that industries are dispersing their costs - pollution - on all of us and globally while reaping all of the benefits themselves.

I think that argument, laid out more accurately, is that through industry all of us spew out an externality, to our benefit in the short run but, potentially, to our (or our descendants') harm in the long run.

But firms push that particular externality globally. So while domestically we may benefit, so we should share in the tax, globally it's still an externality on people who don't benefit. It's not like acid rain, which is localized.

Most of the literature I've seen advocates for an "upstream" tax or cap (on the top-of-the-chain producers of carbon) rather than the "downstream" users. Although, ultimately, it all becomes a downstream tax because you know who ends up paying for it. Us. The mechanism is more an argument about practicality and logistics.

 

[93Devil]

I saw a statistic somewhere, can't vouch for its accuracy, that I thought was interesting...if not impossible. This stat claimed there were more trees on North America now than there was 100 years ago. I understand the guidelines that state the lumber industry has to plant one tree for each one it cuts down, but this sounds pretty impossible.

The thing is, the forestry rules about planting a tree when you cut one down is just one example of what I mean by being good stewards of the planet without crippling American industry with significant carbon taxes. There are plenty of common sense rules that could become mandates that cost virtually nothing.

One example of this...Willie, the visiting clubhouse manager at Progressive Field in Cleveland, developed a recycling program for the stadium (from the main concourse to the clobhouses) that was adobted by every team in MLB. There is nothing wrong with making responsible choices and sharing your wisdom. I just think the carbon tax is a terrible idea that would make no difference.

Do I believe in man-made climate change? Heck no. Do I want to leave a cleaner planet for my kids? Of course. We can get there if everyone buys into it...but we won't get there if it looks like a punative tax and people are forced to spend a lot of money on something like this.

Another thing...I grew up on a rural road in Northeast Ohio in the 1970's. There are woods along the road and it used to be a haven for people dumping trash and throwing crap out the window. My friends and I used to take wagons up and down the street, cleaning up garbage (you would be amazed at some of the things we found...but that is another story). Six years ago I moved into a house less than a half-mile from the house I grew up in...same rural road. Now there is almost no trash. The old commercial with the Indian blowing his nose is no longer applicable because I don't think people litter nearly as much. There used to be crap all over the median and alongside the highways...now it looks pretty clean. Am I the only one that thinks this?

The crying Indian was trying to peg the kids watching, not the adults. It takes 15-20 years for a good grassroots education program to work. But once it is in place, it is set forever.

I don't litter, so my daughter won't litter. Monkey see. Monkey do.

Now recycling and conservation is pegging te children and youth. In 15 years, people who do not recycle will be the exception, not the norm.

And for the big production plants?

When I was growing up in Western Pennsylvania we had tons of blackberry bushes, but the blackberries were always small and not that big. Then the steel mill five miles away shut down. Since then you could find blackberries as big as your thumb on my grandparents property.

It does screw with you somehow. Oh, did I mention that all of my childhood friends, me included, had their fathers die before they were 30 and their fathers never made it to 63?

 

[CarltonBanks]

I saw a statistic somewhere, can't vouch for its accuracy, that I thought was interesting...if not impossible. This stat claimed there were more trees on North America now than there was 100 years ago. I understand the guidelines that state the lumber industry has to plant one tree for each one it cuts down, but this sounds pretty impossible.

The thing is, the forestry rules about planting a tree when you cut one down is just one example of what I mean by being good stewards of the planet without crippling American industry with significant carbon taxes. There are plenty of common sense rules that could become mandates that cost virtually nothing.

One example of this...Willie, the visiting clubhouse manager at Progressive Field in Cleveland, developed a recycling program for the stadium (from the main concourse to the clobhouses) that was adobted by every team in MLB. There is nothing wrong with making responsible choices and sharing your wisdom. I just think the carbon tax is a terrible idea that would make no difference.

Do I believe in man-made climate change? Heck no. Do I want to leave a cleaner planet for my kids? Of course. We can get there if everyone buys into it...but we won't get there if it looks like a punative tax and people are forced to spend a lot of money on something like this.

Another thing...I grew up on a rural road in Northeast Ohio in the 1970's. There are woods along the road and it used to be a haven for people dumping trash and throwing crap out the window. My friends and I used to take wagons up and down the street, cleaning up garbage (you would be amazed at some of the things we found...but that is another story). Six years ago I moved into a house less than a half-mile from the house I grew up in...same rural road. Now there is almost no trash. The old commercial with the Indian blowing his nose is no longer applicable because I don't think people litter nearly as much. There used to be crap all over the median and alongside the highways...now it looks pretty clean. Am I the only one that thinks this?

The crying Indian was trying to peg the kids watching, not the adults. It takes 15-20 years for a good grassroots education program to work. But once it is in place, it is set forever.

I don't litter, so my daughter won't litter. Monkey see. Monkey do.

Now recycling and conservation is pegging te children and youth. In 15 years, people who do not recycle will be the exception, not the norm.

And for the big production plants?

When I was growing up in Western Pennsylvania we had tons of blackberry bushes, but the blackberries were always small and not that big. Then the steel mill five miles away shut down. Since then you could find blackberries as big as your thumb on my grandparents property.

It does screw with you somehow. Oh, did I mention that all of my childhood friends, me included, had their fathers die before they were 30 and their fathers never made it to 63?

I lived in Western Pennsylvania for five years and this does not surprise me. The manufacturing there, steel, and the coal mines are about the dirtiest things you can find. There was a creek south of the town I lived in (Butler) that was FULL of nitrates. The water actually glowed at times.

Now if the manufacturing in Western Pa were something different, something cleaner, those problems wouldn't have been as bad. The smoke from steel mills is awful and I agree something has to be done to protect the people that live around them. Again, not a tax but some kind of technology to reduce the pollutants in the smoke (they came up with clean coal, which is tons better than the old stuff).

I already am surprised when I see someone that doesn't recycle. I don't even think about it anymore...the cans go with the cans and paper in the green trash bin without a second thought. It would be nice if everyone participated in it.