# Climate change denialism is not a winning position **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [June 3, 2014, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939 "2014-06-03T17:35:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2014, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/61 "2014-06-13T14:04:04Z")
People will have to pay more in any event because of peak oil. The IEA gives more details in its Outlook report for 2010. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2014, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/62 "2014-06-14T00:43:17Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > [A new nugget of data:](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-10/americans-by-2-to-1-would-pay-more-to-curb-climate-change.html)New taxes! Higher costs! Jerbs! Oh noez! Then do it and see what happens. Then, like the health care bill, you can console yourselves that Democrats are losing through no fault of their own. ---
**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:** [June 14, 2014, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/63 "2014-06-14T01:02:15Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Then do it and see what happens. Then, like the health care bill, you can console yourselves that Democrats are losing through no fault of their own. I see that you like to carry water for the ones that would in the end ignore the point of King Canute. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2014, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/64 "2014-06-14T03:30:23Z")
When your side has a plan to reduce carbon emissions SIGNIFICANTLY, we can talk about how much people are willing to pay for it. I doubt anyone is willing to see their electric bill double for a 1% decrease. How much will that second 1% cost? ---
**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:** [June 14, 2014, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/65 "2014-06-14T03:40:45Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > When your side has a plan to reduce carbon emissions SIGNIFICANTLY, we can talk about how much people are willing to pay for it. I doubt anyone is willing to see their electric bill double for a 1% decrease. How much will that second 1% cost? If the home is lost under the sea I think the point is moot. Point being that you are only having an ignorant idea about the risks and costs involved of leaving things like this for later. And also the point stands, it may be so that this will not be very effective this election cycle, but the record will show who was the party that delayed and denied. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2014, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/66 "2014-06-14T04:22:52Z")
Cost/benefit analysis matters, even when disaster is near. If we pay more and have the disaster anyway, history will record that it was your party who wanted to put more energy efficient smokestacks on the Titanic instead of lifeboats. ---
**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:** [June 14, 2014, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/67 "2014-06-14T04:35:53Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Cost/benefit analysis matters, even when disaster is near. If we pay more and have the disaster anyway, history will record that it was your party who wanted to put more energy efficient smokestacks on the Titanic instead of lifeboats. No, we know already that a titanic can happen, we are discussing if now if the ports the ship came and was going to will sink too. Sorry but on this you are grossly wrong. > **[Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong | William D. Nordhaus](https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/03/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/)** > > The threat of climate change is an increasingly important environmental issue for the globe. At a time when we need to clarify public confusions about the science and economics of climate change, skeptics have muddied the waters. I will describe... > [@](#): > > This leads to the second point, which is that the authors summarize my results incorrectly. My research shows that there are indeed substantial net benefits from acting now rather than waiting fifty years. A look at Table 5-1 in my study A Question of Balance (2008) shows that the cost of waiting fifty years to begin reducing CO2 emissions is $2.3 trillion in 2005 prices. If we bring that number to today’s economy and prices, the loss from waiting is $4.1 trillion. Wars have been started over smaller sums.10 > > My study is just one of many economic studies showing that economic efficiency would point to the need to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions right now, and not to wait for a half-century. Waiting is not only economically costly, but will also make the transition much more costly when it eventually takes place. Current economic studies also suggest that the most efficient policy is to raise the cost of CO2 emissions substantially, either through cap-and-trade or carbon taxes, to provide appropriate incentives for businesses and households to move to low-carbon activities. > > One might argue that there are many uncertainties here, and we should wait until the uncertainties are resolved. Yes, there are many uncertainties. That does not imply that action should be delayed. Indeed, my experience in studying this subject for many years is that we have discovered more puzzles and greater uncertainties as researchers dig deeper into the field. There are continuing major questions about the future of the great ice sheets of Greenland and West Antarctica; the thawing of vast deposits of frozen methane; changes in the circulation patterns of the North Atlantic; the potential for runaway warming; and the impacts of ocean carbonization and acidification. Moreover, our economic models have great difficulties incorporating these major geophysical changes and their impacts in a reliable manner. Policies implemented today serve as a hedge against unsuspected future dangers that suddenly emerge to threaten our economies or environment. So, if anything, the uncertainties would point to a more rather than less forceful policy—and one starting sooner rather than later—to slow climate change. > > The group of sixteen scientists argues that we should avoid alarm about climate change. I am equally concerned by those who allege that we will incur economic catastrophes if we take steps to slow climate change. The claim that cap-and-trade legislation or carbon taxes would be ruinous or disastrous to our societies does not stand up to serious economic analysis. We need to approach the issues with a cool head and a warm heart. And with respect for sound logic and good science. > **[William Nordhaus: Smoking can teach us about climate change](https://www.salon.com/2013/10/30/william_nordhaus_smoking_can_teach_us_about_climate_change/)** > > A Yale economist explains why we need to put a price on carbon ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2014, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/68 "2014-06-14T05:03:22Z")
Problem is, you have to actually do something effective. Paying billions for a single digit percentage reduction is useless. ---
**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:** [June 14, 2014, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/69 "2014-06-14T05:24:57Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Problem is, you have to actually do something effective. Paying billions for a single digit percentage reduction is useless. You are not offering anything, and that is what the Republicans offer indeed. Mind you, what I pointed out was a very conservative estimate of the costs of doing nothing, the latest reports on the acceleration of the ice loss means that the costs are rising as we speak, and show that virtually all republicans in congress will hit not only a gender barrier with less women voting for them; not only an immigration barrier with less minorities voting also for them, but also a wall of millions on the coastal cities that will realize that Republicans do not give a damn. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2014, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/70 "2014-06-14T05:26:32Z")
The costs of doing nothing = X The cost of doing something and achieving nothing = X + the cost of the ineffectual changes. When you guys come up with ideas that actually work, we’ll be listening. ---
**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:** [June 14, 2014, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/71 "2014-06-14T05:30:03Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The costs of doing nothing = X > > The cost of doing something and achieving nothing = X + the cost of the ineffectual changes. > > When you guys come up with ideas that actually work, we’ll be listening. Ignorance too, there are many plans and ideas already investigated, proposed and implemented; some even posted in this thread already, **some even approved by conservatives**. You are only repeating denialist tripe. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2014, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/72 "2014-06-14T05:46:07Z")
There’s only one plan that has merit: a revenue neutral carbon tax, because that has economic benefits even if climate change wasn’t an issue. Nothing else proposed even comes close to dealing with the scope of the problem. This is not an “every little bit helps” issue. It’s a case of you either fix it or you don’t. ---
**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:** [June 14, 2014, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/73 "2014-06-14T06:04:52Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > There’s only one plan that has merit: a revenue neutral carbon tax, because that has economic benefits even if climate change wasn’t an issue. > > Nothing else proposed even comes close to dealing with the scope of the problem. This is not an “every little bit helps” issue. It’s a case of you either fix it or you don’t. Well, that is something, but we are talking about the do nothings in congress, that are the Republicans. By contrast many outside the congress are more active and eventually it will dawn on them how silly is to vote for the current blind ones in power. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2014, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/74 "2014-06-14T12:14:39Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > There’s only one plan that has merit: a revenue neutral carbon tax, because that has economic benefits even if climate change wasn’t an issue. > > Nothing else proposed even comes close to dealing with the scope of the problem. This is not an “every little bit helps” issue. It’s a case of you either fix it or you don’t. When you say revenue neutral, you mean at the targeted reduction level, revenue would be what it is now, right? 'Cause otherwise, it’s just another way to hand corporations a tax break for doing shit they should already be doing. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2014, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/75 "2014-06-14T12:41:03Z")
I mean revenue would not rise. We could reduce the payroll tax to make it revenue neutral. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2014, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/76 "2014-06-14T12:54:17Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I mean revenue would not rise. We could reduce the payroll tax to make it revenue neutral. So a company can continue to pollute at current levels and their costs won’t rise. Or they can spend a little extra, reduce emissions, and their costs go down (depending on ROI), and the government takes the hit. Is that about it? THE GODDAMN ANSWER TO EVERY PROBLEM IS NOT A FUCKING TAX CUT! ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2014, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/77 "2014-06-14T13:04:33Z")
IT’s not a tax cut, it’s just changing the way taxes are paid. The idea isn’t to raise the cost of doing business, it’s to reward clean business and penalize dirty business. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2014, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/78 "2014-06-14T13:14:24Z")
The goal is to reduce emissions and to begin to capture the cost of excess CO2 emissions (a cost that has been socialized up until now, while profit remains privatized - a subsidy of sorts). That’s why I’m saying that the proper incentive is to set the revenue neutral point at the targeted emissions goal. Then if businesses want a tax cut, they can attempt to exceed the target which should, theoretically anyway, similarly reduce government expenses and thus justify the reduced revenue. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2014, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/79 "2014-06-14T13:39:17Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Then do it and see what happens. You live in Florida, I understand? Then one thing that happens is that there continues to \*be \*a Florida. > [@](#): > > Then, like the health care bill, you can console yourselves that Democrats are losing through no fault of their own. You _really_ haven’t been keeping up, have you? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2014, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939/80 "2014-06-14T14:01:48Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > The goal is to reduce emissions and to begin to capture the cost of excess CO2 emissions (a cost that has been socialized up until now, while profit remains privatized - a subsidy of sorts). > > That’s why I’m saying that the proper incentive is to set the revenue neutral point at the targeted emissions goal. Then if businesses want a tax cut, they can attempt to exceed the target which should, theoretically anyway, similarly reduce government expenses and thus justify the reduced revenue. Business isn’t the primary problem. It’s consumers, namely, drivers. Although I suppose you could take that same concept and apply it to individuals. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-denialism-is-not-a-winning-position/689939.md?page=5)