Read the bit I linked: Sea-level rise has been happening continuously, and will continue to happen, and is accelerating.
But, that’s just it, it doesn’t, despite many RW and business-interest lies to the contrary.
It does. Raising energy prices reduces economic growth. This is well agreed upon when it’s not intentional, but somehow when it becomes part of the plan some people think it’s different.
The impact will happen even before the storms, as property owners start to figure out that they will have to build expensive walls in order to reduce the chance of losing their property during quite normal storms. It is when once in a century storms become once in a decade - and I think we might be there already.
Natural disasters undo economic growth.
Just thought I should point that out.
When nothing else changes. However if the expectation of rising energy prices causes the development and purchase of more energy efficient products, we get benefit from increased consumption as people swap out products more quickly, and the impact is reduced because of higher efficiency. My Prius reduces the impact of gas price rises, and if I had an electric car it would be reduced even more.
Plus, decreased energy consumption tends to drive down prices, even as environmental regulations tend to drive them up.
ANd how much do you have to raise energy prices to actually reduce natural disasters?
This assumes wide adoption of energy efficient measures, like electric cars. I think electric cars are promising, but I’m not yet seeing enough of them on the road to convince me that we’re anywhere near reducing emissions from vehicles on the road. How high do you think gas prices will have to be to encourage wide adoption of electric cars, and will the voters stand for it?
Well, I don’t think the coasts are the problem. It’s the persistent drought in America’s Heartland[sup]TM[/sup] that’s the economic killer.
In the 1990’s, those of us in the central and western U.S. (I’m including myself in this) did not take global warming seriously because it was presented as a coastal problem, and thus we thought it had nothing to do with us.
Our present representatives in Washington are from that era.
But rainfall failures over a generation are wrecking our agricultural base. We’re moving toward a 1980’s Ethiopia kind of drought, with the added wrinkle that much of the landscape in the Southwest* is on fire.*
Now it’s the East Coast that isn’t taking global warming seriously. A few mutters when there’s a bad storm, but little else. And the media and power centers are there.
And the old Midwest, between the Mississippi and the Appalachians, aren’t dying from it yet.
But anti-environmentalism in Oklahoma, New Mexico, Texas, and Kansas is going to need some really strong disconnection from reality to overcome the experiences of actual ranchers and farmers.
All that needs to be done is to find a way that people like the Koch Bros., Exxon, and BP can continue making humongous amounts of money without getting us all killed. Maybe they can’t promote fossil fuels any more, but we give them a monopoly on tie-dye shirts and hand dipped candles.
Growth? Economic growth? You’re still pushing that nonsense? I expect most conservatives don’t even believe in economic growth at this point. Sounds like techno-utopian nonsense. Is the planet going to sprout new continents for us to conquer?
Surely the point of most political conservatism, as opposed to the fantastically optimistic capitalist Pollyannery they teach in “business school,” is to hang on like hell to the land and resources you’ve got in a zero-sum war against those outside your in-group. :dubious:
That’s not correct. Somebody, if they get enough signatures, can get on the ballot as an independent or as a member of a minor party. Eric Cantor just can’t, because of that “sore loser” law. So, he’d have to run a write in campaign (which would probably be doomed, because write in campaigns tend to be).
That’s not true. To get on the Virginia ballot for the House of Representatives race, you either need to be a candidate of a major party, or get a petition with the signatures of 1000 qualified voters. From the law:
That sounds more sensible - thanks for the information, Captain Amazing. I still find the “sore loser” law to be odd - it does give a political party control over access to the ballot.
Yeah, I can’t imagine why the legislative representatives of the political parties allowed that to become law…
Did you watch the Vice episode about this recently? Texans aren’t ignoring what’s going on; they entirely acknowledge that there is an unprecedented drought. Apparently because god is mad at them and not because of anything having to do with climate change.
Probably not much, if you do it right. The idea of cap-and-trade, which people like you have decided is eeeeeeeeviiiiiiil, is to let the market figure out how to get the most GHG reduction for the least cost.
If you use less market-based approaches, like restricting the CO2 emissions a power plant is allowed per kwh of electricity production, then it’ll be more expensive.
But the cost of turning western Kansas into a desert is really quite spectacular.
It was fine back when it was their own idea. Sound familiar?
Now why would God be mad at Texas, I wonder?
Where do you live? Because in the Bay Area we are up to our asses in them. Four people in our 20 person department have electric cars. The cost of a lease for a Leaf from Nissan is very reasonable, and you get a sticker that lets you in the carpool lane. 10 years ago hybrids were just starting and also got a sticker (not any more, alas) and now the Prius is the most common type of car I see. I think it is the best selling car in California, but don’t quote me on that. I have one, and the price premium is small or nil.
The infrastructure is coming, as most big companies have charging stations. Most commutes are short enough to make electric cars practical.
There are also tons of ads for solar panels, and the roofing companies are getting into the game in a big way.