# "I'm an energy voter" **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 6, 2016, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-an-energy-voter/765162 "2016-09-06T02:02:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**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:** [September 7, 2016, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-an-energy-voter/765162/21 "2016-09-07T21:25:07Z")
> [@Salvor](#): > > Someone above you just did suggest that is what we needed to do to avoid catastrophe. Muzzle your dogs, they are barking and slobbering all over whether you acknowledge them or not. Looking at what you posted before you are like someone that cuts a guy open only to realize how you got the wrong target and thinking that it can get better by just saying “My Bad” > [@Salvor](#): > > The point you miss is that your goal is to make fossil fuel use so punitive in terms of cost it make it more justifiable to switch away. I basically want a less steep tax on such things than people like you do. And you are wrong again (really you are not sounding better, just more ignorant) The plans I have seen do want to start very slow and small with the tax and grow it or modify it if the situation does not change. [http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/the-myriad-benefits-of-a-carbon-tax/](http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/the-myriad-benefits-of-a-carbon-tax/) > [@](#): > > Most climate experts concur that dangerous climate change is occurring at a more rapid rate than expected. They also agree that the deterioration in the earth’s climate is primarily a result of carbon emissions from fossil fuel consumption by humans. If you dispute the overwhelming scientific consensus about man-made climate change and the role of fossil fuel emissions, you should probably stop reading now. Evidence is unlikely to affect your opinions. > > But if you accept this consensus, you should know that economists across the political spectrum agree that a carbon tax is the most effective way to discourage carbon consumption and lower the risks of catastrophic climate changes. > > … > > There’s much debate about what the proper “social cost of carbon” might be, but there is no debate that carbon emissions are seriously underpriced. Any tax on carbon would be an important step in the right direction, and it could be gradually increased to give consumers and producers time to modify their decisions. > [@Salvor](#): > > Because unlike most climate liberals, I am at least SOMEWHAT concerned over the costs this has to people not sipping hundreds of dollars in lattes each month where the costs of fuel and energy and the related increases in food costs put a greater burden and drag on them. Well so far you were only proposing big solutions like Geo engineering like if it we could get the money for them magically. > [@Salvor](#): > > In the end, your desire to grind and tax dirty fuel will not be the driver to something better. The technological solutions are the ACTUAL solutions. Ok, so back to the magical funding… > [@Salvor](#): > > Cheaper electric cars that are cheaper to buy and operate \> gasoline cars and everyone will switch. Once we have that technology, if you want to tighten the screws on dirty cars and ALSO give some equivalent or greater tax credit towards an electric car, then that would be fine. But NOT before you have a credible and relatively cheap alternative. And getting on the bus is not an answer. Maybe the eventual fleet of self driving uber electric cars might be. > > And god help you if you try to take away beef. You better put in some of your own funds to that lab grown beef, because the abstinence model is not a pathway forward for energy use or consumption if you want to see human beings prosper. The straw men must be on sale at Cosco. Well, as noted, nowhere there is a note on how to fund the massive Geo engineering efforts and sea walls. And nowhere there is an effort to explain or criticize what the fossil fuel companies are doing with ads like the OP is talking about. ---
**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:** [September 7, 2016, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-an-energy-voter/765162/22 "2016-09-07T21:56:04Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > :raises hand: Actually, that was what I said upthread. At this time, we are at the point that we have to stop fossil fuels “cold turkey” now. Point to order, I have seen most of the experts report that while it is too late to prevent some changes, it is not too late to prevent very bad scenarios. Hence the point that there will be adaptation costs that we can not avoid now, but they can get worse only by not accelerating the rate of change. And not to press on the obvious but I was referring to experts and scientists, unless you are one I do think that there are also extreme views like the one you have that jump to the worst scenarios and avoid the ones were we do make a concerted effort to control emissions. > **[A Glimpse at Our Possible Future Climate, Best to Worst Case Scenarios](https://skepticalscience.com/news.php?f=climate-best-to-worst-case-scenarios)** > > Recently there has been widespread discussion that perhaps the Earth's climate is not quite as sensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2 as climate scientists previously believed, which would be good news, because it would give us more time to reduce... ---
**Author:** ![inscrutable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a88e4f/32.png) [@inscrutable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/inscrutable)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2016, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-an-energy-voter/765162/23 "2016-09-09T12:17:36Z")
…and in other news, more oil discovered in Texas: > **[See where Apache Corp. says it found billions of barrels of oil](https://www.marketwatch.com/story/see-where-apache-corp-says-it-found-billions-of-barrels-of-oil-2016-09-07?link=MW_popular)** > > A relatively sleepy corner of west Texas springs to life thanks to an “immense” discovery by Apache Corp. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2016, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-an-energy-voter/765162/24 "2016-09-09T13:26:53Z")
Usually these types of ads are sad. This one wasn’t too bad, but still pretty annoying. The development of energy from fossil fuels has been one of the key components of the staggering increases in prosperity we have seen over the last 200 years. Fossil fuel technology has allowed man to protect himself from the elements, and as a result, climate related deaths have plummeted from 100 years ago. For most of human history humans laid waste to above ground energy resources. If smart humans never developed fossil fuel energy, we would never have seen the explosion in population and average prosperity. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2016, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-an-energy-voter/765162/25 "2016-09-09T16:47:06Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > Renewables create jobs as well, by some studies more jobs than oil does. Not relevant. You forgot the find and replace rule of translating Conservative rhetoric. In order to to make sense of what they say, every time you hear the word “Jobs” you need to replace it with the word “Profits”. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2016, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-an-energy-voter/765162/26 "2016-09-10T18:29:58Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Practically all fossil fuel consumption in North America must end by the first week of November, 2020. That’s your deadline. Unless you want to start a chain reaction that will flood out of existence almost every coastal US city by 2070. > > Is that clear enough? Now, tell me what economic gain is worth losing most of the Florida peninsula, all of Long Island and Manhattan, basically the whole Gulf Coast, and the homes and livelihoods of a majority of American citizens. It’s FINE! Climate change will just create a NEW gulf coast, with RANDOMLY capitalized words! ---
**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:** [September 10, 2016, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-an-energy-voter/765162/27 "2016-09-10T23:14:11Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > It’s FINE! Climate change will just create a NEW gulf coast, with RANDOMLY capitalized words! Lex Luthor must be an executive at Exxon. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2016, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-an-energy-voter/765162/28 "2016-09-11T13:51:46Z")
> [@Salvor](#): > > As to Syria, I don’t doubt that climate change contributed to the drought there. So what? You think that is what hurt Syrians more? The civil war was primarily driven by Islamists running wild and Assad asserting his power with Russias backing. no the civil war began as non islamist reaction against the Assed regime’s bloody repression of the peaceful protests against corruption and the economic stagnation. it is only after several years that the Al Qaeda and the DAESH became dominant. so indeed the impact of drought and the large stress on the Syrian economy (combined with the corruption of the Asseds) are the Cause. The radical islamist groups were produced by about two years of civil war, they were not in the start. ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2016, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-an-energy-voter/765162/29 "2016-09-12T00:49:57Z")
“Renewables create jobs as well, by some studies more jobs than oil does.” > [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Not relevant. > > You forgot the find and replace rule of translating Conservative rhetoric. In order to to make sense of what they say, every time you hear the word “Jobs” you need to replace it with the word “Profits”. It’s indeed irrelevant but not for the reason you give which is also basically irrelevant. The people who fund ads like ‘I’m an Energy Voter’ are trying to protect particular investments they’ve made (or the value of expertise they’ve amassed) in developing particular forms of energy. That’s fair enough to point out, though also obvious, no really serious free market conservative would say otherwise. However aside from the ads, if low carbon energy were the most efficient, in near term $'s and cents terms, way of providing energy the govt wouldn’t have to subsidize it or force anyone to use it. And the fact it has to force it means there’s a net cost. There’s no point in trying to argue it as ‘jobs’ v ‘profits’. It’s enforced inefficiency v market efficiency. There could be a good reason to impose that inefficiency now, to avoid the cost/risk of more serious climate effects later the market does not price in. That’s the whole issue. But it’s basically political BS to say green is in favor of ‘jobs’ and anti-green is in favor of ‘profits’. The Cassandra-esque poster above saying we have to take climate change action now severe enough to cause 10’s millions of American deaths, shooting wars and the end of the polity might be going a bit overboard, I sure hope so anyway. But that poster at least grasps the basic point. Forced green policies make us accept lower average living standards now for an expected future benefit, reducing the risk of future climate calamity, though it’s IMO very difficult to say exactly what that is (in between one worth killing of millions now in order to avoid to the other extreme of not much of a problem). But it’s just obfuscating to argue for green in terms of collectivist redistribution (‘green energy will mean jobs for the people, non green energy means profits for the rich!’). You could do the collectivist redistribution _without_ the green (though also with a likely net cost) if there wasn’t a climate problem. It’s really two different things, and in fact tying them together plays into the suspicion that the climate issue is being deliberately hyped to justify redistributionism that can’t stand on its own feet as a policy. ---
**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:** [September 12, 2016, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-an-energy-voter/765162/30 "2016-09-12T01:25:34Z")
> [@Corry\_El](#): > > But that poster at least grasps the basic point. Forced green policies make us accept lower average living standards now for an expected future benefit, reducing the risk of future climate calamity, though it’s IMO very difficult to say exactly what that is (in between one worth killing of millions now in order to avoid to the other extreme of not much of a problem). But it’s just obfuscating to argue for green in terms of collectivist redistribution (‘green energy will mean jobs for the people, non green energy means profits for the rich!’). You could do the collectivist redistribution _without_ the green (though also with a likely net cost) if there wasn’t a climate problem. It’s really two different things, and in fact tying them together plays into the suspicion that the climate issue is being deliberately hyped to justify redistributionism that can’t stand on its own feet as a policy. Of course that is not supported at all. Basically it is the propaganda of the ones denying the issue the ones that claim that this is just redistributionism. Consider just the example of the ones that do accept the problem but tell us that we will benefit. They might have a point. but that was also the reason why groups like the IPCC allowed for the change to not be made as in “going cold turkey”. But the ones that propose inaction have not thought this properly. The addition of CO2 in the atmosphere is not making the changes to be instantaneous, there is a lag on the temperature that the planet will reach by the end of the century and beyond. Thing is, that the ones that propose that this issue will be beneficial and do not want to do anything are ignoring that the temperatures will overshot the temperature levels that the lukewarmers think that they want to see. As it is, there are now changes that can not be avoided; unless a sensible mechanism can explain away, or that we should not worry about, the fact is that the ice caps are melting at an accelerated rate and the oceans will rise as a result of it. The very optimists that do not want to accelerate the changes needed to prevent higher levels of ocean rise will cause humanity to overshot the limits that are considered to be safe, and to increase the risks to have an unstable environment. In that case many are bound to die in the unrest caused by the forced movement of people. > **[NASA Science Zeros in on Ocean Rise: How Much? How Soon? - NASA](https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-science-zeros-in-on-ocean-rise-how-much-how-soon/)** > > Seas around the world have risen an average of nearly 3 inches since 1992, with some locations rising more than 9 inches due to natural variation, according > [@](#): > > In 2013, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued an assessment based on a consensus of international researchers that stated global sea levels would likely rise from 1 to 3 feet by the end of the century. According to Nerem, new research available since this report suggests the higher end of that range is more likely, and the question remains how that range might shift upward. > [@](#): > > Scientists estimate that about one-third of sea level rise is caused by expansion of warmer ocean water, one-third is due to ice loss from the massive Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, and the remaining third results from melting mountain glaciers. But, the fate of the polar ice sheets could change that ratio and produce more rapid increases in the coming decades. What I see is that making the changes needed will limit the ocean rise to manageable levels, not making a concerted effort or to vote for people that support what the ad stands for will only lead to even more expensive solutions and unrest in many regions of the earth. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2016, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-an-energy-voter/765162/32 "2016-09-12T10:42:42Z")
> [@Salvor](#): > > What % of scientists that have looked into coastal flooding of the coasts and Florida on the scales you are talking about agree it’s going to be that dire? What confidence level to they have in that particular prediction? > > This is the kind of doom saying I am talking about. Most climate scientists agree climate change is influenced by man made causes, but they do NOT agree on the degree in anywhere near those same numbers. The farther out you go, the more chaotic and unpredictable the projections get, but you lay them out as near certainty. > Here is another. We have hundreds of millions of cars in the US. It takes decades to clear out the car fleet, say every 20 years the fleet is essentially replaced in virtual entirety. How are you going to have nearly every car driver, over the course of 5 years, stop driving unless they buy some brand new electric car? We are not going to all switch to electric immediately, it will take time to ramp up battery production (which I want) to eventually replace the demand coming from gasoline cars. > > The environmental movement tosses out catastrophist bombs like this all the time, predicts death and worse if we don’t do X, Y, Z by THIS date. Or ELSE. THIS date passes, the sky has not fallen, the sun is still shining, it’s a little warmer but we continue on. Ah but right, not at the tipping point yet, like the chemical titration where once a certain threshold is crossed it’s all changed. Even if that occurs, we’d still be better off NOT ending all driving before we can switch out the fleet to electric (which we will NOT be able to do in 4 years my GOD the madness of this movement). Tesla hopes to produce a million electric cars a year by 2020. We are not going to replace the hundreds of millions of cars on the road in a few years. And what if it was technically feasible, what about some poorer person using a new car they just bought to get to work that uses gasoline? Woops, we all need to cut it all off immediately. Can’t afford to get a new electric car? Then screw you, you can walk, peasant. Or take the bus. Just make sure to drop the beef. Too much methane. Want to keep eating cows? Without a method of preventing methane release from their existence? Sorry, cut back on the cows. Here is some tofu. > > … I think GIGO quite adroitly challenged your post on substance, so I’ll just say that nobody is necessarily demanding that we cease all fossil fuel production. But what harm comes from putting serious resources into cleaner and more permanent sources of energy, like solar, wind, et al? The sooner, the better. ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2016, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-an-energy-voter/765162/33 "2016-09-12T14:13:23Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Of course that is not supported at all. Basically it is the propaganda of the ones denying the issue the ones that claim that this is just redistributionism. > > Consider just the example of the ones that do accept the problem but tell us that we will benefit. They might have a point. but that was also the reason why groups like the IPCC allowed for the change to not be made as in “going cold turkey”. But the ones that propose inaction have not thought this properly. The addition of CO2 in the atmosphere is not making the changes to be instantaneous, there is a lag on the temperature that the planet will reach by the end of the century and beyond. > > Thing is, that the ones that propose that this issue will be beneficial and do not want to do anything are ignoring that the temperatures will overshot the temperature levels that the lukewarmers think that they want to see. As it is, there are now changes that can not be avoided; unless a sensible mechanism can explain away, or that we should not worry about, the fact is that the ice caps are melting at an accelerated rate and the oceans will rise as a result of it. The very optimists that do not want to accelerate the changes needed to prevent higher levels of ocean rise will cause humanity to overshot the limits that are considered to be safe, and to increase the risks to have an unstable environment. In that case many are bound to die in the unrest caused by the forced movement of people. 90% of what you said is just about how you believe it’s important to reduce CO2 emissions. That may be true but irrelevant to my point. I’ll reiterate “But that poster at least grasps the basic point. Forced green policies make us accept lower average living standards now for an expected future benefit, reducing the risk of future climate calamity, though it’s IMO very difficult to say exactly what that is (in between one worth killing of millions now in order to avoid to the other extreme of not much of a problem).” As I said earlier in the same post, it’s obvious funding for ads like ‘I’m an Energy Voter’ come from people/groups with a specific financial interest in fossil fuel development. It would be odd if that weren’t true. But let’s take a step back. Those ads are not trying to convince anyone to buy more expensive energy rather than less expensive energy, in terms of today’s $s and cents costs. Rather the ads are trying to generate political will against the govt forcing people to use higher cost forms of energy or less energy than they otherwise would to optimize economics now. My point was about the irrelevancy of trying to argue that forced-green is ‘creating jobs’ while not forcing it is ‘creating profits’ (in general). That’s just political mumbo-jumbo with no economic validity. The basic economic reality is forced reduction in CO2 emission is going to mean lower living standards unless the reduction is to the most marginal ‘lukewarm’ degree…which would be marginal wrt problem. ‘Jobs’ v ‘profits’ or any other manifestation of ‘inequality’ and collectivism as the proposed remedy is a different issue. I was arguing against the obfuscatory conflation of the two, which is common, and I saw in the posts I responded to. And, trying to make such a false argument, ‘we can have lots of green jobs but less profits of the rich, and no net economic cost to society doing this, it’s killing all kinds of birds with one stone, win, win, win!’ definitely at least creates the impression that the climate problem is being hyped in order to justify more collectivism. Which impression also tends to be projected by the fact that most very greens are also pro-economic collectivism to begin with. I think you ignore a major problem in the politics of climate change to brush off this point as ‘propaganda’. And, as to what it would cost in living standards to really effect climate change much, I would stick with my statement that that’s highly uncertain. I’m sure at least I don’t know with any certainty. And you can’t say nobody in favor of drastic action thinks it would require severe dislocation of society. You have to argue with the pro-green poster foolsguinea on that, see above, not w/ me. That poster is the one saying we have to take action against climate change which would result in 10’s of millions of US deaths to avoid an even worse outcome, or least that’s how I understand that post. What exactly would it cost? Your missive like most political discussion of this from pro-green view doesn’t dwell on that at all, or again implicitly pretends it could be virtually costless to living standards overall, and it’s just ‘special interests’ resisting it. I do criticize people who deny there’s any problem, because that allows the green side to get away with this ambiguity/fatuousness of just presenting projections of future change without being forced to quantify and justify cost/benefit\*. They can just point to the people saying ‘forget it don’t worry’ as being less realistic than they are. \*some stabs at this have been made, but often with highly doubtful assumptions, and it’s very far from the center of the debate, whereas it should be right at the center. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2016, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-an-energy-voter/765162/34 "2016-09-12T22:30:41Z")
I used to be a lot like **Salvor**. I didn’t take global warming seriously. I didn’t see how it was a problem. And being from the central US,\* I actually told myself that it wasn’t my problem if coastal cities were flooded.\* Eventually I realized\* that\* at least was pathological on my part. Then reading about the effects of carbonic acid on coral changed my tune. Then seeing how utterly panicked people in low-lying countries like the Maldives and Tuvalu are. Then polar bears losing habitat, and on and on. I started seeing what a temperature spike can do. I live in an area where we get heat waves and long droughts. Seeing those two things happen together a few years ago–seeing 114° F temperatures in June and trees dying in the ground–burned away my indifference and my doubts. I now see that even _my_ region is in trouble from this. If I am an alarmist now, it is because the numbers keep going up. And we keep being in the high end of predictions for a given year. That implies that we’re on track for the high end of predictions for the century. And then we will have a refugee crisis to make the present panic over refugees look like a day in the park It’s very misleading to say, “2° C temperature rise.” That’s a final measurement of a global average after a huge amount of energy is accumulated in the system that would otherwise radiate into space. The really scary stuff is obfuscated by being described as a temperature rise of a few degrees. Here’s what that change actually means: > **[Earth Temperature Timeline](https://xkcd.com/1732/)** > > \[After setting your car on fire\] Listen, your car's temperature has changed before. We probably should call this problem “catastrophic surface fluid phase change.” It’s mostly the ratio of ice to liquid water to vapor that’s getting us. Incidentally, also de-alkalinization of seawater, and pests being able to breed more in areas that previous were frozen more of the year. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2016, 10:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-an-energy-voter/765162/35 "2016-09-13T10:26:09Z")
> [@Salvor](#): > > Muzzle your dogs, they are barking and slobbering all over whether you acknowledge them or not. Any further insults of this nature will result in a Warning. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2016, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-an-energy-voter/765162/36 "2016-09-13T10:38:11Z")
> [@Corry\_El](#): > > The Cassandra-esque poster above. . . Interestingly, Cassandra was not believed, but was actually correct. Is this the idea you wished to convey? ---
**Author:** ![inscrutable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a88e4f/32.png) [@inscrutable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/inscrutable)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2016, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-an-energy-voter/765162/37 "2016-09-13T12:20:54Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > I used to be a lot like **Salvor**. I didn’t take global warming seriously. I didn’t see how it was a problem. > > And being from the central US,\* I actually told myself that it wasn’t my problem if coastal cities were flooded.\* Eventually I realized\* that\* at least was pathological on my part. > > Then reading about the effects of carbonic acid on coral changed my tune. Then seeing how utterly panicked people in low-lying countries like the Maldives and Tuvalu are. Then polar bears losing habitat, and on and on. > > I started seeing what a temperature spike can do. I live in an area where we get heat waves and long droughts. Seeing those two things happen together a few years ago–seeing 114° F temperatures in June and trees dying in the ground–burned away my indifference and my doubts. I now see that even _my_ region is in trouble from this. > > If I am an alarmist now, it is because the numbers keep going up. And we keep being in the high end of predictions for a given year. That implies that we’re on track for the high end of predictions for the century. And then we will have a refugee crisis to make the present panic over refugees look like a day in the park > > It’s very misleading to say, “2° C temperature rise.” That’s a final measurement of a global average after a huge amount of energy is accumulated in the system that would otherwise radiate into space. The really scary stuff is obfuscated by being described as a temperature rise of a few degrees. > > Here’s what that change actually means: > [xkcd: Earth Temperature Timeline](http://www.xkcd.com/1732/) > > We probably should call this problem “catastrophic surface fluid phase change.” It’s mostly the ratio of ice to liquid water to vapor that’s getting us. Incidentally, also de-alkalinization of seawater, and pests being able to breed more in areas that previous were frozen more of the year. …and higher energy taxes/prices on middle-class Americans will solve all these problems? ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2016, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-an-energy-voter/765162/38 "2016-09-13T12:28:20Z")
> [@inscrutable](#): > > …and higher energy taxes/prices on middle-class Americans will solve all these problems? Where was this claimed? ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2016, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-an-energy-voter/765162/39 "2016-09-14T00:02:51Z")
> [@inscrutable](#): > > …and higher energy taxes/prices on middle-class Americans will solve all these problems? :dubious: Not really. Pigouvian taxes are a moderate’s attempt to nudge things while not actually doing much. “To do by not doing.” If we had a longer time frame, it might or might not work. No, given the imminence of the threat, we need a direct intervention–a “Green New Deal”: Confiscation of fossil-fuel power plants, mass pubic investment in solar and wind tech–and possibly a new model of utility ownership. One reason the existing power companies haven’t yet transitioned to solar is that it’s hard to translate into their fundamental business model. That’s why we get nonsensical statements like “Solar power requires an enormous amount of water”–only true for concentrated solar. Distributed generation systems so far have turned “customers” into “suppliers”–that looks like such a fundamental financial killer to utility companies that they’re clinging to coal and gas even as those fuels get more expensive. So, we have to change a lot, and apparently we have to change a lot quickly before a cascade of methane into the atmosphere from clathrates in lost seabed ice and…the end of the world of Man, or, maybe, even the end of the age of Mammalia. :eek: Now, I don’t much care whether the public employees building a new more sustainable power grid have their wages paid for by massive gouging taxes on the financier class, or we raise everyone’s taxes to fill elite mouths with gold and buy them out. I don’t even care if we have to just start mass murdering people, if the alternative is the methane cascade, or “the clathrate gun” as some call it. ---
**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:** [September 14, 2016, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-an-energy-voter/765162/40 "2016-09-14T01:03:10Z")
> [@Corry\_El](#): > > And, trying to make such a false argument, ‘we can have lots of green jobs but less profits of the rich, and no net economic cost to society doing this, it’s killing all kinds of birds with one stone, win, win, win!’ definitely at least creates the impression that the climate problem is being hyped in order to justify more collectivism. Which impression also tends to be projected by the fact that most very greens are also pro-economic collectivism to begin with. > > I think you ignore a major problem in the politics of climate change to brush off this point as ‘propaganda’. > > And, as to what it would cost in living standards to really effect climate change much, I would stick with my statement that that’s highly uncertain. I’m sure at least I don’t know with any certainty. And you can’t say nobody in favor of drastic action thinks it would require severe dislocation of society. You have to argue with the pro-green poster foolsguinea on that, see above, not w/ me. That poster is the one saying we have to take action against climate change which would result in 10’s of millions of US deaths to avoid an even worse outcome, or least that’s how I understand that post. What exactly would it cost? Your missive like most political discussion of this from pro-green view doesn’t dwell on that at all, or again implicitly pretends it could be virtually costless to living standards overall, and it’s just ‘special interests’ resisting it. How much? I wonder were you were because many many times I pointed to what a conservative scientist and (among the economists he consulted to say the followin) an economist that became President of the American Economics Association told us what was calculated) [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] About 1% annually of the world’s GDP is how much will it cost if we do a concerted and sustainable effort. Hardly the end of the world. Of course, the longer we wait the higher the cost, I do think that a lot will not be used in the change so we are headed to a lot of wasted opportunities. The costs will be higher with the efforts to deal with the changes that instead of being smaller and manageable can become much more expensive thanks to inaction. > **[The economic impacts of carbon pricing](https://skepticalscience.com/co2-limits-economy.htm)** > > \Economic assessments of proposed policy to put a price on carbon emissions are in widespread agreement that the net economic impact will be minor. The costs over the next several decades center around $100 per average family, or about 75 cents per... > [@](#): > > There is a consensus among expert climate economists that carbon pollution limits are needed to prevent climate change from badly damaging the global economy. > > A number of economic incentives are being tried with varying degrees of success. Regional schemes are already proving effective, flexible and popular. An important ingredient seems to be an accompanying tax reduction that makes the carbon tax revenue-neutral. > > In the long term, unless we drastically reduce the rate at which we are still emitting greenhouse gases, we are very likely to incur huge costs as a result of climate change. Part of these costs will be in adaptation, and the inevitable disruption. In part costs will escalate due to turmoil and uncertainty throughout the economic world. There will also be costs that cannot be quantified, particularly when we try to value a human life and its loss. > > We have to reduce our emissions. If we are to avoid draconian government intervention, carbon pricing schemes are a viable method of encouraging us to reduce fossil fuel use. Coupled with other measures to stimulate renewable energy development, putting a price on carbon may help us make the transition away from fossil fuels. And from our experience to date, it seems likely that carbon taxes, instead of bringing an economy to its knees, may well help transform an outdated system into one fitting for a sustainable century. ---
**Author:** ![Salvor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Salvor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Salvor)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2016, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-an-energy-voter/765162/41 "2016-09-18T17:05:51Z")
> [@Ramira](#): > > no the civil war began as non islamist reaction against the Assed regime’s bloody repression of the peaceful protests against corruption and the economic stagnation. > > it is only after several years that the Al Qaeda and the DAESH became dominant. > > so indeed the impact of drought and the large stress on the Syrian economy (combined with the corruption of the Asseds) are the Cause. > > The radical islamist groups were produced by about two years of civil war, they were not in the start. Just stop. If they were buddhists you would NOT have seen the same sort of death cultist purges. Stop trying to white wash Islam, the murder religion of the world, from it’s wellspring of justifications and amplifications of the darkness of man. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-an-energy-voter/765162.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-an-energy-voter/765162.md?page=3)