Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

The Paris Climate Deal at a Glance | New York Times


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The Key Players in Climate Change | New York Times

Propaganda is all too often the enemy of truth. But always then justified as a necessary means to a noble end. How many times do we need to see this insidious pattern repeat itself before the human race catches a clue? If the message or ideology cannot be truthfully reported for it to succeed, then perhaps there's a serious flaw with the message. Trust the people to decide; they might just surprise you.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by fryewe

an unbinding agreement between transitory power brokers. Ranks right up there with the Iran Nuclear Agreement...another unbinding agreement. How's that working out?

So you would be happier if the US and others gave up some of its sovereignty in a binding agreement?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Check back with us in 2030 with an update.

I have a bit more optimism these days that some slow progress is being made, which together with better research will lead to a broader acceptance of the need for action... so by 2030, there may be some good news to discuss.

Of course, all the people here who are fighting tooth and nail to prevent any recognition or action will at that time be saying "see? there was nothing to worry about... it wasn't doom and gloom, and look the free market fixed it. Just what we said!"

Just like saying the market made vehicles more efficient and reduced tailpipe emissions, and is responsible for the US emissions going down.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Just like saying the market made vehicles more efficient and reduced tailpipe emissions, and is responsible for the US emissions going down.

Of course the market accomplished these things. The market demanded more fuel efficient cars after the 1973 oil embargo, and communicated that to Detroit by buying huge numbers of small, efficient cars made in Japan. More fuel efficiency = lower tailpipe emissions. Then a broad based consensus of people demanded cleaner air & water, and the govts. responded with stricter emissions stds., and passage of the Clean Air & Water Acts. No different than when the hazards of lead became widely recognized, the people demanded the govt. step in and require mfgs. of paint and gasoline to remove it.

If/when science gets to the point of a true and honest consensus that humans are causing an amount of GW that is truly harmful, then the people -- through its representatives and the marketplace -- will similarly demand an appropriate govt. response. This is how things work in democracies, notwithstanding the corrupting influences of big money and powerful lobbies. Or would you prefer to have the air quality the people are forced to endure in places like Beijing?

I know every "movement/agenda" has to have its bogeymen to consolidate support and keep its adherents motivated, but you should first learn how your world actually works before trying to loftily impose your misplaced views for "hope & change" on others.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Of course the market accomplished these things. The market demanded more fuel efficient cars after the 1973 oil embargo, and communicated that to Detroit by buying huge numbers of small, efficient cars made in Japan. More fuel efficiency = lower tailpipe emissions. Then a broad based consensus of people demanded cleaner air & water, and the govts. responded with stricter emissions stds., and passage of the Clean Air & Water Acts. No different than when the hazards of lead became widely recognized, the people demanded the govt. step in and require mfgs. of paint and gasoline to remove it.

Priceless.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

[transmitterdan]

The way to convince the great unwashed masses is simple. Make accurate predictions and let everyone know about them and then report results. Admit when you get it wrong and explain why.

Don't make stupid predictions that are clearly wrong in the hope of scaring average non-scientific folk into going along with drastic actions.

We may be in for some severe effects of climate change. But the majority of people believe that the proposed cures will be far worse than the disease. Unless that changes no drastic measures will gain support. Calling these people deniers or stupid or whatever name is in vogue will not help change their minds. It has the opposite effect.

It's a good feature of human nature to be skeptical. History is littered by examples where healthy skepticism was quashed by force with terrible consequences. Likewise, history is littered with predictions that human ingenuity could never exceed arbitrary limits only to be prove wrong by ludicrous margins.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

The way to convince the great unwashed masses is simple. Make accurate predictions and let everyone know about them and then report results.

You mean like:
Science: hey if you continue to do X you'll screw up the planet
[X continues to be done, planet gets screwed up]
People: Ah. I see what you mean.

That's like testing a bridge's load limit by driving heavier trucks over it til it collapses.

We may be in for some severe effects of climate change. But the majority of people believe that the proposed cures will be far worse than the disease. Unless that changes no drastic measures will gain support. Calling these people deniers or stupid or whatever name is in vogue will not help change their minds.

The people who are rightfully being called deniers are those "denying" or attacking the science. There are genuine scientific skeptics, of course, but the majority of "skeptics" I encounter here and elsewhere are mainly deniers for political or other reasons who have walked it back a bit to "no consensus! unsettled science!". At least it means that the science is getting a bit more respect, and so, presumably, better science as it emerges will produce fewer objections.

Denying the science just because one doesn't like the implications of it is, of course, stupid.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by jackdale

So you would be happier if the US and others gave up some of its sovereignty in a binding agreement?

'Twouldn't be a loss of sovereignty, but rather an exercise of it. But I would prefer a binding agreement...

For several reasons:
-the primary reason is that agreements between the US and other governments requires the Senate to ratify them...it's the law. This agreement has not been presented to the Senate, because the administration plays word games with agreements to avoid Congressional action.
-another similar reason is that the agreement transfers large sums of money from the US to other countries, and appropriations of money require the House to take action to do so...it's the law. The 100B USD transfer payments in this treaty have not been authorized nor appropriated by the House.
-action by the Congress would include significant debate and perhaps public discussion of the merits (we can hope the grandstanding would be kept to a minimum).
-if Congress were to act, in either direction, such action would signify that the US has a position on the issue.
-a treaty generally includes provisions for bowing out, positive or negative reasons, and sometimes expiration clauses, which are needed (see Ken's initial post).

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Priceless.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

After reading how unconvincingly the MMGW argument has been presented in this thread, CC is even further down the list of issues that keep me up at night. I do need to remind myself, however, that there is credible science supporting some yet-to-be-determined level of potential harm, and so it is worthwhile asking whether the pro-MMGW side may be correct. Unfortunately, I can't ever imagine the MMGW advocates I've encountered asking themselves the same, namely whether the deniers/skeptics may be correct. To me, this only confirms that it's not just about the science for these advocates, and that politics, philosophy, and personal agendas are all too often the tail wagging the CC dog.

It doesn't sound like you have a realistic sense of the necessary but imperfect role of govt. in democratic societies. You don't have to be a left-wing anarchist nor a right-wing survivalist to understand that govt. serves essential and critical functions, but is rarely innovative, farsighted or clairvoyant. In other words, you may want to follow Ken's lead and reconsider those solar panels instead of waiting around for "systemic" solutions from your govt.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

better science as it emerges will produce fewer objections.

I have little doubt about that one.

Denying the science just because one doesn't like the implications of it is, of course, stupid.

Equally stupid is ascribing such motives to people who, for the most part, are simply awaiting better science.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Of course the market accomplished these things.

Advocates of capitalism understand that it cannot account for waste by-products - please note I did not say pollutant.

A home construction company cannot simply dump the excess biodegradable lumber into a ditch.

The fossil fuel industry seems to get a free ride because its waste is odorless and invisible.
___________________________
Garret Hardin, a strong advocate of private property, in his landmark essay The Tragedy of the Commons (1968)

In a reverse way, the tragedy of the commons reappears in problems of pollution. Here it is not a question of taking something out of the commons, but of putting something in--sewage, or chemical, radioactive, and heat wastes into water; noxious and dangerous fumes into the air, and distracting and unpleasant advertising signs into the line of sight. The calculations of utility are much the same as before. The rational man finds that his share of the cost of the wastes he discharges into the commons is less than the cost of purifying his wastes before releasing them. Since this is true for everyone, we are locked into a system of "fouling our own nest," so long as we behave only as independent, rational, free-enterprisers.

The tragedy of the commons as a food basket is averted by private property, or something formally like it. But the air and waters surrounding us cannot readily be fenced, and so the tragedy of the commons as a cesspool must be prevented by different means, by coercive laws or taxing devices that make it cheaper for the polluter to treat his pollutants than to discharge them untreated. We have not progressed as far with the solution of this problem as we have with the first. Indeed, our particular concept of private property, which deters us from exhausting the positive resources of the earth, favors pollution. The owner of a factory on the bank of a stream--whose property extends to the middle of the stream, often has difficulty seeing why it is not his natural right to muddy the waters flowing past his door. The law, always behind the times, requires elaborate stitching and fitting to adapt it to this newly perceived aspect of the commons.

+++++++++++++++++++++

Milton Friedman, the grand daddy of capitalism, in 1979

Phil Donahue: Is there a case for the government to do something about pollution?

Milton Friedman: Yes, there’s a case for the government to do something. There’s always a case for the government to do something about it. Because there’s always a case for the government to some extent when what two people do affects a third party. There’s no case for the government whatsoever to mandate air bags, because air bags protect the people inside the car. That’s my business. If I want to protect myself, I should do it at my expense. But there is a case for the government protecting third parties, protecting people who have not voluntarily agreed to enter. So there’s more of a case, for example, for emissions controls than for airbags. But the question is what’s the best way to do it? And the best way to do it is not to have bureaucrats in Washington write rules and regulations saying a car has to carry this that or the other. The way to do it is to impose a tax on the cost of the pollutants emitted by a car and make an incentive for car manufacturers and for consumers to keep down the amount of pollution.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You mean like:
Science: hey if you continue to do X you'll screw up the planet
[X continues to be done, planet gets screwed up]
People: Ah. I see what you mean.

....At least it means that the science is getting a bit more respect, and so, presumably, better science as it emerges will produce fewer objections.

"I see what you mean"...heh...

https://theartsmechanical.wordpress....getting-wrong/

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Advocates of capitalism understand that it cannot account for waste by-products - please note I did not say pollutant.

A home construction company cannot simply dump the excess biodegradable lumber into a ditch.

The fossil fuel industry seems to get a free ride because its waste is odorless and invisible.
___________________________
Garret Hardin, a strong advocate of private property, in his landmark essay The Tragedy of the Commons (1968)

In a reverse way, the tragedy of the commons reappears in problems of pollution. Here it is not a question of taking something out of the commons, but of putting something in--sewage, or chemical, radioactive, and heat wastes into water; noxious and dangerous fumes into the air, and distracting and unpleasant advertising signs into the line of sight. The calculations of utility are much the same as before. The rational man finds that his share of the cost of the wastes he discharges into the commons is less than the cost of purifying his wastes before releasing them. Since this is true for everyone, we are locked into a system of "fouling our own nest," so long as we behave only as independent, rational, free-enterprisers.

The tragedy of the commons as a food basket is averted by private property, or something formally like it. But the air and waters surrounding us cannot readily be fenced, and so the tragedy of the commons as a cesspool must be prevented by different means, by coercive laws or taxing devices that make it cheaper for the polluter to treat his pollutants than to discharge them untreated. We have not progressed as far with the solution of this problem as we have with the first. Indeed, our particular concept of private property, which deters us from exhausting the positive resources of the earth, favors pollution. The owner of a factory on the bank of a stream--whose property extends to the middle of the stream, often has difficulty seeing why it is not his natural right to muddy the waters flowing past his door. The law, always behind the times, requires elaborate stitching and fitting to adapt it to this newly perceived aspect of the commons.

+++++++++++++++++++++

Milton Friedman, the grand daddy of capitalism, in 1979

Phil Donahue: Is there a case for the government to do something about pollution?

Milton Friedman: Yes, there’s a case for the government to do something. There’s always a case for the government to do something about it. Because there’s always a case for the government to some extent when what two people do affects a third party. There’s no case for the government whatsoever to mandate air bags, because air bags protect the people inside the car. That’s my business. If I want to protect myself, I should do it at my expense. But there is a case for the government protecting third parties, protecting people who have not voluntarily agreed to enter. So there’s more of a case, for example, for emissions controls than for airbags. But the question is what’s the best way to do it? And the best way to do it is not to have bureaucrats in Washington write rules and regulations saying a car has to carry this that or the other. The way to do it is to impose a tax on the cost of the pollutants emitted by a car and make an incentive for car manufacturers and for consumers to keep down the amount of pollution.

Jack I seem to remember you posting this exact post about 200 pages ago verbatim. Where's the new MMGW stuff

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by jackdale

A home construction company cannot simply dump the excess biodegradable lumber into a ditch.

Better to burn it in my wood stove or use it to build whirly-gigs.

Where I live there are no local laws regarding the disposition of construction "excess." Yet I don't see or hear stories of builders polluting the highways, byways, creeks, rivers, or lakes.

That government is needed to cause positive action by persons or companies is a incorrect construct.

With CO2 defined as a pollutant, how long until we have a tax on breathing, with increased taxes for those who like to jog, or work out, and for those whose careers require exertion such as professional athletes?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by fryewe

With CO2 defined as a pollutant, how long until we have a tax on breathing, with increased taxes for those who like to jog, or work out, and for those whose careers require exertion such as professional athletes?

Human exhalation is a part of the natural CO2 cycle.