# Climate change: children taking legal action because adults are complacent **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 2, 2016, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-children-taking-legal-action-because-adults-are-complacent/753657 "2016-05-02T01:10:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2016, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-children-taking-legal-action-because-adults-are-complacent/753657/21 "2016-05-02T20:50:31Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I defer to economists with experience on the issue: > > [Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong | William D. Nordhaus | The New York Review of Books](http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/03/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/) > So the answer is, even with some unknowns, that we should act, because uncertainty is not our friend, and for less odds than that we do insure our homes. It has to be mentioned also that when William D. Nordhaus wrote that he and many other did not know if the loss of cap ice was accelerating, and we know that now, meaning that the cost for not taking care of the issue as it should is increasing. That is an interesting [paper](http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/Balance_2nd_proofs.pdf)that the article links to. What it shows is that there are some policies that reduce global warming but are a net loss economically and some that would be a net benefit. So we need to be sure we choose the correct policies. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2016, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-children-taking-legal-action-because-adults-are-complacent/753657/22 "2016-05-02T20:52:49Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I do not think that we should wait anymore. > > [How Solar and Wind Got So Cheap, So Fast - The Atlantic](http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/12/how-solar-and-wind-got-so-cheap-so-fast/418257/) The great thing about the market is if alternatives really are cheaper than the switch will occur minimal disruption as if guided by an invisible hand. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2016, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-children-taking-legal-action-because-adults-are-complacent/753657/23 "2016-05-02T21:06:09Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > This is not true at all. The cost we are now paying for fossil fuels is less than what we would be paying for an alternative. The longer we wait for the alternative the more money we save. If we wait long enough then technology may bring alternative fuels down to cost parity and then we would spend no more money. The jobs are a cost and not a benefit. That depends on how you calculate the cost. For instance, what would mitigation of [the Athabaska River basin](http://www.businessinsider.com/15-frightening-facts-about-canadas-booming-tar-pits-from-hell-2010-7?op=1) cost? What would motor fuel cost per gallon if it actually carried its weight? How much of the actual direct and indirect cost of fossil fuel usage is subsidized or handwaved away? Global climate change is one of those costs that we – or our children – will eventually have to pay; the longer we rack up an increasing balance on that debt, the more we will have to pay. It is unlikely that we can keep rolling it over as we have been. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2016, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-children-taking-legal-action-because-adults-are-complacent/753657/24 "2016-05-02T21:10:43Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > The great thing about the market is if alternatives really are cheaper than the switch will occur minimal disruption as if guided by an invisible hand. I remember what happened[when the invisible hand was guiding Enron](http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Waving-goodbye-to-the-invisible-hand-How-the-2869769.php). I have to insist; in a world where the alternatives are already cheaper in many areas, and are still a better choice when we take into account the real cost of using our atmosphere as a sewer, it is clear who are the weakest link; and they are almost all of the Republicans in congress and Republican Governors. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2016, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-children-taking-legal-action-because-adults-are-complacent/753657/25 "2016-05-02T21:30:21Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > What can we do? For starters, do not vote Republican until they change their denialist and pro fossil fuel agenda. AND put pressure on environmentalists and liberals (like Sanders) who are shortsightedly against nuclear power. We need to stop using fossil fuels but we’ll need to replace that power with something. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2016, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-children-taking-legal-action-because-adults-are-complacent/753657/26 "2016-05-02T21:37:12Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > AND put pressure on environmentalists and liberals (like Sanders) who are shortsightedly against nuclear power. We need to stop using fossil fuels but we’ll need to replace that power with something. [One of the biggest moot points…](http://www.vox.com/2016/3/28/11318160/bernie-sanders-hawaii-washington-alaska) ---
**Author:** ![drewder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@drewder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewder)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2016, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-children-taking-legal-action-because-adults-are-complacent/753657/27 "2016-05-02T21:43:35Z")
How bout we charge the baby boomers and gen xers for all the debt they’ve saddled us with, at least those numbers are quantifiable. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2016, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-children-taking-legal-action-because-adults-are-complacent/753657/28 "2016-05-02T21:50:26Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [One of the biggest moot points…](http://www.vox.com/2016/3/28/11318160/bernie-sanders-hawaii-washington-alaska) The best thing that Sanders could do right now for the environment would be to come out in favor of nuclear power. Some liberals will only listen to other liberals, even if they’ve lost the nomination for presidency. ---
**Author:** ![Greg\_Charles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/839c29/32.png) [@Greg\_Charles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Greg_Charles)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2016, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-children-taking-legal-action-because-adults-are-complacent/753657/29 "2016-05-02T22:38:48Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > This is not true at all. The cost we are now paying for fossil fuels is less than what we would be paying for an alternative. The longer we wait for the alternative the more money we save. If we wait long enough then technology may bring alternative fuels down to cost parity and then we would spend no more money. The jobs are a cost and not a benefit. I have a couple of issues here. First, the cost we are paying for fossil fuels currently does not reflect socialized costs of the environmental impact. Second, the technology to bring down the cost of alternative fuels is driven by adoption. A good way to deal with both of this issues would be a “fee-bate”, where we charge fees on older, polluting technologies and use the money to subsidize new, clean technologies. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2016, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-children-taking-legal-action-because-adults-are-complacent/753657/30 "2016-05-03T03:13:09Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > The great thing about the market is if alternatives really are cheaper than the switch will occur minimal disruption as if guided by an invisible hand. So you think yesterday’s price of gasoline reflects the risks of rising sea levels decades from now? Can you explain how that works? And if _tomorrow_’s scientific estimate of sea level rise changes, presumably you think the “invisible hand” would magically reach back and guide _yesterday_’s gas prices. That’s an even better trick. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2016, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-children-taking-legal-action-because-adults-are-complacent/753657/31 "2016-05-03T11:54:11Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > But it really does highlight an important point: the children are the people most affected by the shit we pile up; how else can we be compelled to proceed in forward-looking ways that will favor them rather than simply eating, drinking and merrymaking for our own sake? To be fair, they’re going to do the same thing to their children. Unless you know about some modification to the basic genetics of humans that was made in the last decade or two, it’s a fair assumption that our children are going to act much like us, our parents, their parents, and all our other ancestors and progressively kick the can down the road for anything that isn’t an immediate emergency. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2016, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-children-taking-legal-action-because-adults-are-complacent/753657/32 "2016-05-03T12:14:29Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > The best thing that Sanders could do right now for the environment would be to come out in favor of nuclear power. Some liberals will only listen to other liberals, even if they’ve lost the nomination for presidency. [Hillary Clinton isn’t going to do any more for nuclear power](http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Environment.htm) than Sanders either. So we can vote for Republicans, who often don’t think AGW is a problem but support a viable solution, or Democrats who do think that but oppose a viable solution. It comes down to the question of whether we want to do something about the problem, or just use it for political gains and change the subject when cost-benefit analysis gets mentioned. > [@wolfpup](#): > > The data is indeed complex and involves an enormous number of different variables, although most of them have to do with the political will to engage in serious mitigation and investment in development of alternative energy sources. And Democrats do not have the political will to engage in serious mitigation or investment in practical solutions. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2016, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-children-taking-legal-action-because-adults-are-complacent/753657/33 "2016-05-03T12:37:23Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > That is an interesting [paper](http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/Balance_2nd_proofs.pdf)that the article links to. What it shows is that there are some policies that reduce global warming but are a net loss economically and some that would be a net benefit. So we need to be sure we choose the correct policies. The environmental benefits trump any economic disbenefits. We’ve got to stop worshipping at the altar of corporate profits. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2016, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-children-taking-legal-action-because-adults-are-complacent/753657/34 "2016-05-03T12:44:50Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > To be fair, they’re going to do the same thing to their children. Unless you know about some modification to the basic genetics of humans that was made in the last decade or two, it’s a fair assumption that our children are going to act much like us, our parents, their parents, and all our other ancestors and progressively kick the can down the road for anything that isn’t an immediate emergency. “Think Globally, Act Locally” We shouldn’t be waiting for this change to happen at the top … sometimes we have to change at the bottom first: [Oregon outlaws coal fired electricity](http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/03/oregon-coal-climate-law-kate-brown) Barring any Federal interference … Oregon will be on the road to a fossil-fuel-free future … this started with individuals using alternatives, then neighborhoods, then communities, then counties … and now the whole State. Mitigating climate change starts with you … not World Government[sup]©[/sup] … ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2016, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-children-taking-legal-action-because-adults-are-complacent/753657/35 "2016-05-03T14:22:27Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I remember what happened[when the invisible hand was guiding Enron](http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Waving-goodbye-to-the-invisible-hand-How-the-2869769.php). > > I have to insist; in a world where the alternatives are already cheaper in many areas, and are still a better choice when we take into account the real cost of using our atmosphere as a sewer, it is clear who are the weakest link; and they are almost all of the Republicans in congress and Republican Governors. The invisible hand does not guide individual companies it guides the market as a whole. Enron failed because they were counting on the government setting up a market for carbon offsets to combat global warming. They were wrong about that and the invisible hand guided capital away from them and toward companies that could better use the capital. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2016, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-children-taking-legal-action-because-adults-are-complacent/753657/36 "2016-05-03T14:29:10Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > So you think yesterday’s price of gasoline reflects the risks of rising sea levels decades from now? Can you explain how that works? > > And if _tomorrow_’s scientific estimate of sea level rise changes, presumably you think the “invisible hand” would magically reach back and guide _yesterday_’s gas prices. That’s an even better trick. That was not the claim being made. He said that alternatives were already cheaper, not alternatives are cheaper if you include all of the externalities. The market would work better if the externalities were priced in, that is why I support a pigouvian tax on carbon dioxide producing fuels. I still don’t think anything can be done since global warming is a global problem and expecting people to make themselves poorer to help foreigners is not something that is realistic historically. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2016, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-children-taking-legal-action-because-adults-are-complacent/753657/37 "2016-05-03T14:45:31Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > [Hillary Clinton isn’t going to do any more for nuclear power](http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Environment.htm) than Sanders either. Not the whole picture, Sanders opposes nuclear power, while Clinton does approve them under a framework of controlling emissions. > **[While Sanders Rejects It, Clinton Embraces Nuclear as Part of 'Clean-Energy'...](https://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/03/21/while-sanders-rejects-it-clinton-embraces-nuclear-part-clean-energy-vision)** > > The two candidates battling for the Democratic presidential nomination are divided as to whether nuclear power qualifies as "clean energy" > [@](#): > > Bernie Sanders has made climate change a central pillar of his campaign for the Democratic nomination for president, and he is adamant that nuclear power has no place in his vision of the nation’s cleaner future. > > Hillary Clinton, to the contrary, believes “nuclear energy has an important role to play in our clean-energy future,” Jake Sullivan, Clinton’s policy director, told the local Idaho news source [Magicvalley.com](http://Magicvalley.com) on Monday. Yeah, one can say that she was first in favor, then against it, now in favor. One however has to go for the \*\*current \*\*campaign to see where the promise is and it is clear that support for nuclear will continue, Bernie is really the only major candidate that definitely opposes nuclear power. > [@Shodan](#): > > So we can vote for Republicans, who often don’t think AGW is a problem but support a viable solution, or Democrats who do think that but oppose a viable solution. Sorry, but denying that there is a problem also means that no extra support for new nuclear plants and no support whatsoever of solar and wind is in their minds. > [@Shodan](#): > > It comes down to the question of whether we want to do something about the problem, or just use it for political gains and change the subject when cost-benefit analysis gets mentioned. > > And Democrats do not have the political will to engage in serious mitigation or investment in practical solutions. > > Regards, > Shodan And your point as usual is disregarded as it it was not based on good information. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2016, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-children-taking-legal-action-because-adults-are-complacent/753657/38 "2016-05-03T14:53:33Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > That was not the claim being made. He said that alternatives were already cheaper, not alternatives are cheaper if you include all of the externalities. The market would work better if the externalities were priced in, that is why I support a pigouvian tax on carbon dioxide producing fuels. I still don’t think anything can be done since global warming is a global problem and expecting people to make themselves poorer to help foreigners is not something that is realistic historically. Cite for that? In reality the treaties and the IPCC does projections based on the idea that indeed we can not go cold turkey and the changes will be mostly gradual, but they have to happen and many researchers and economists point that the real fear mongers are the ones that tell us that making people poor is a requirement for the change. Not so. [QUOTE] Some people say transitioning to clean energy will simply cost too much - "leave it to future generations." In Edinburgh, Scotland, Richard Alley explains that if we start soon the cost of the transformation could be similar to that which was paid for something none of us would want to do without - clean water and the modern sanitation system. [/QUOTE] > **[India Solar Power Push May Produce Over 1 Million Jobs - CleanTechnica](https://cleantechnica.com/2016/03/23/india-solar-power-push-may-produce-over-1-million-jobs/)** > > Sign up for daily news updates from CleanTechnica on email. Or follow us on Google News! Originally published on Sustainnovate. India’s massive solar power capacity addition target is expected to be a revolution in the Indian jobs market as well.... > [@](#): > > India’s massive solar power capacity addition target is expected to be a revolution in the Indian jobs market as well. > > According to a report by the Natural Resources and Defense Council (NRDC), India may end up creating over a million new jobs in its endeavour to have 100 GW of operational solar power capacity by March 2022. > > The report suggests that a massive army of engineers, construction, and maintenance workers shall be required set up the scores of solar power capacity planned by the central and state governments. > > Around 210,800 site engineers and designers would be required to set the large-scale as well as rooftop solar power systems rolling. Around 624,600 semi-skilled workers would be needed for the construction and on-field execution of the projects. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2016, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-children-taking-legal-action-because-adults-are-complacent/753657/39 "2016-05-03T14:56:51Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Yeah, one can say that she was first in favor, then against it, now in favor. One however has to go for the \*\*current \*\*campaign to see where the promise is and it is clear that support for nuclear will continue, No, that isn’t clear. She changed her mind, three times, and she hasn’t made any promises, and there is no assurance that she would keep such a promise if she did make it. As usual for Democrats, she has no serious commitment to any practical solution. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2016, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-children-taking-legal-action-because-adults-are-complacent/753657/40 "2016-05-03T15:07:04Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > The invisible hand does not guide individual companies it guides the market as a whole. Enron failed because they were counting on the government setting up a market for carbon offsets to combat global warming. They were wrong about that and the invisible hand guided capital away from them and toward companies that could better use the capital. Cite for Enron counting on government setting that cap-n-trade for them? > **[Enron Invented Cap and Trade - Climate 411](https://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2009/05/29/enron-invented-cap-and-trade/)** > > Claim: “Christopher C. Horner, author of the book ‘Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud and Deception to Keep You Misinformed’ noted that it was Enron that invented the concept of cap and trade and then profited off it until... > [@](#): > > For one thing, Enron didn’t exist until the late 1980s after the merger of InterNorth and Houston Natural Gas. By that time, the concept of cap and trade as a policy to cut pollution had been debated for more than a decade. > > Cap and trade was later codified in U.S. law in the 1990 Clean Air Act to reduce America’s acid rain pollution. The Economist crowned the acid rain cap and trade policy “probably the greatest green success story of the past decade.” (July 6, 2002). > > EDF played a leading role in promoting the acid rain pollution cap, and take it from us Enron played no role in the debate what-so-ever. > > As for “Soviet-style planning” – the dictionary defines HYPERBOLE as an “obvious and intentional exaggeration.” Perhaps we should amend it to include Mr. Horner’s statement. > > Mr. Horner either doesn’t know what he’s talking about or is dissembling. Far from a command and control program, cap and trade is a market-based policy designed to unleash investments in the clean energy economy. By definition, it is the opposite of letting the government pick winners and losers. > > In fact, the first President Bush — not exactly a promoter of Soviet style economics — signed the 1990 cap and trade law because it was a centrist, efficient way to effectively cut pollution. And it still is. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-children-taking-legal-action-because-adults-are-complacent/753657.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-children-taking-legal-action-because-adults-are-complacent/753657.md?page=3)