So does the left, or at least that segment that take Al Gore seriously. I’d argue the left politicizes it more than the Tea Party.
The left believes something needs to be done about it. Can’t do anything about it without politiicizing it.
The left has no viable plan for ‘doing something’. Mind you, that hasn’t stopped them before.
The fact is, we don’t know if Global Warming is going to be a net negative for the Earth. The range of values for warming includes a large region in which the overall effect of warming would be positive because of longer growing seasons, reduced heating requirements in the populous north, re-opening of valuable sea lanes, etc.
If man-made global warming is less than 2.5 degrees, the best predictions we have show that it will be a net benefit to the economy, and CO2 emissions are actually a positive externality.
Of course, the warming could be greater than that and induce a net harm. But then the thorny problems of discount rates for future harm versus present costs emerge, and we haven’t even begun to have that argument yet because we’re stuck in silly debates about basic science.
The estimates of future harm also require being able to predict fossil fuel consumption 50 years from now and the state of the world economy decades down the road. That’s extremely problematic given that we can’t predict a major economic downturn a year in advance. Nor could we predict major reductions in CO2 that were just around the corner in the form of new natural gas reserves opened up through fracking. So any estimates of what the economy or our energy infrastructure will look like decades from now are likely to be as laughably wrong as predictions for the society of the year 2000 were when made in 1900.
Even if we can do that, we have to establish a viable carbon reduction plan that doesn’t depend on magical new energy sources or the assumption that wind and solar can take the place of high density fossil fuels. We have to do cost-benefit analysis that shows how $1 spent today on carbon reduction will be a better investment than spending it on, say, medical research or leaving it in the hands of individuals to grow the economy. And I want to see a viable carbon tax that doesn’t devolve into a big slush fund for politicians or a wealth transfer to special interest groups, but actually works to decrease carbon use. I have yet to see that.
Then if we can get past all that and firmly establish a ‘social cost’ for carbon that isn’t based on fairy dust and unicorn farts, we have the little problem that the world’s main emitters of CO2 are not on board with any of this, and are not likely to be any time soon. And until they are, any unilateral reductions in emissions on our side will be completely ineffective as it will just give them cheaper fossil fuels and even less reason to join the party. That’s the reality of a global, fungible commodity like oil. If we use less of it, the price drops and stimulates more of its use elsewhere. Net result: nada, or close to it. A carbon tax could therefore become little more than a wealth transfer from the U.S. to China, India, and Russia.
But hey, let’s ignore that and just crater the economy with trillions of dollars in new taxes and mandates. Because we have to do ‘something’. After all, the science is settled. So the debate’s over, and anyone who doesn’t agree with the grand plan is a ‘denier’.
What you quoted said to stop harmful industrial agriculture, logging, and mining. It left open the idea of sustainable agriculture, logging, and mining – the kind that don’t produce acre-feet of toxic pollutants.
Yes, even that was too extreme. It would twelve-times decimate the world economy. On the other hand, it points in the right direction: reforming the world’s major industries to be less harmful.
Your parody of this viewpoint left out those provisions for reform.
I’ll back off and stipulate that, yes, you did provide a demonstration of people holding an absurdly extremist viewpoint. However, they aren’t influential in any way. This kind of viewpoint is akin to the Libertarians who want us to go back to the Gold Standard. You hear the yammering every so often, but it is always ignored, because it’s so obviously loony.
So allow me to retrench: No one of any significance, importance, or influence believes this crap.
Let’s see . . . Ah, yes!
So let me get this straight: You admit that the left’s ideal is destructive, but moderate steps in that direction would be good thing. Therefore, people who hold the ideal aren’t ‘extremists’ so long as they’re willing to accept incremental change in that direction.
The Libertarians on the other hand, have an ideal of very limited government that you think would be destructive. Therefore, they’re extremists even if they’re willing to work incrementally towards that ideal?
You’re applying a slippery-slope argument to the other side, while assuming your side would not succumb to that. No libertarian or Tea Partier I know wants to tear down the entire structure of the state tomorrow. Everyone understands the difference between an ideal and what’s practical and achievable. But you’re willing to give only one side that benefit of the doubt.
Well, now the silly propaganda point that was supposed to be surrounded with many good points is used alone. 
Nope, it is not a mantra of the left, **as posted already virtually all former republican EPA managers told you that it is also what many on the right need to look at.
**
It is important that all moderate republicans and the ones that do look at science to guide policy be aware of the what the Tea Party is doing in their name, one of the first items that they need to be aware of is that the current crop of Tea party republicans is not in tune with even the majority of Republicans.
What the hell does that prove, other than your side has come up with some clever set of bullet points to trot out when losing an argument?
And besides, I never said anything like what your highlighted bullet says, unless you want to apply that to the IPCC as well. The possibility that Global Warming will be a net economic benefit is right there in the current report, just has its been in the other ones.
The larger point I was making is that accepting the basic science of global warming is only the first in a long chain of questions and problems that have to resolved before we should risk the global economy and millions of lives in an attempt to ‘do something’.
I’m sorry you don’t like that, and I understand your side’s burning need to frame the question in terms of “Believer in basic science vs DENIER”, but unfortunately it’s just not that simple.
Besides… Your chart is meaningless unless you have, you know, actual ANSWERS to those points. Tell me: What’s your answer to the problem that it’s in China and Russia’s best interest to burn as much fossil fuel as they can so long as it’s cheaper than the alternatives? What’s your answer to Russia’s heavy reliance on fossil fuel exports? Are you expecting them to just shut down their economy?
Show me a plan. That’s all I ask. Not some vague handwaving about how we all just have to try really hard, or that we need a new treaty that doesn’t any teeth. We saw how well that worked for Kyoto.
Tell me, are you willing to blockade Middle Eastern oil supplies? Blow up Russia’s fuel pipelines? Perhaps throw hard sanctions on countries that exceed their fossil fuel quotas? Are you willing to go to war over this?
This isn’t just an item in a silly talking point table. This is the real world. If you want your plans to be taken seriously anywhere but in college dorm rooms or the cocktail circuit in Berkeley, you need to have real answers to these questions, with hard numbers and enforcement provisions. Because when it comes down to it, countries will act in their own best interests. If you couldn’t get them to live up to their Kyoto Treaty requirements in the middle of an economic boom, I don’t know how you’re going to get them to agree to major reductions in GDP at a time when the world economy is shaky and governments are mired in debt.
Let me guess, more “information” from the tea party sources that are supposed to lead us?
What I have seen even the real scientists at RealClimate reported that a 2 degree increase will not be a walk in the park, so who told you that a 2.5 degree increase will be beneficial?
As Dr. Nordhaus explained this is really poppycock FUD, and just to show for the 100th time, even republican scientists continue to demonstrate that this subject was not supposed to be a political issue, the denial here is also a denial of what history has showed, there are powerful interests that decided to make it a political issue and the Tea Party in particular are enabling this.
The point made before stands, whoever government will not reduce their emissions will suffer eventually when their populations see that their noncompliance becomes dangerous.
Funny, you don’t see your argument making any progress in academia, or even with economists that have experience with the issue.
Once again, only if the emissions are controlled now. The flaw in your point is that there is even more certainty that we are already committed to a 2 degree increase, we should try to prevent it from going higher than that.
I’m not impressed at all, the fact that you are pushing forward already debunked points does not make them sound better under layers of political ideology.
I do not think the Chinese are ignoring the issue.
What is happening is what many Republicans pointed out, when the change takes place China will eat our lunch with alternative technologies.
Not answering for him but the red herring is a big one over here. As pointed before, the wars will more likely happen internally when the population is affected by the inaction.
So… No answers, huh? All you’ve done is blow a lot of smoke. The truth is, there’s no real agreement on discount rates. It is not at all clear what the cost-benefits are. The ranges for the externality costs of carbon are all over the map. I’ve never seen a proper risk/benefit analysis of the various options. There is no treaty on the table that has the acceptance of the big three future CO2 generators, and none that have any enforcement mechanisms other than promises. And we’ve seen how well promises work out. Australia just elected a leader who promised to end their carbon tax. A number of signees of the Kyoto protocol failed to live up to their commitments or even try to reach them.
You want to convince me and others like me to sign on to a massive new regulatory and tax burden, it’s up to you to provide a plan that does more than hand-wave at serious problems, or respond to serious concerns about implementation with scaremongering about the risks of doing ‘nothing’, as you did above. The risks of doing nothing are irrelevant if your proposed option also does nothing except transfer a whole bunch of wealth around.
We saw this song and dance with ‘green jobs’. Remember those? Remember how Obama was going to fundamentally transform the entire economy around ‘green jobs’? It never made sense, and those of us who said there was nothing behind the bluster and pretty vision were mocked.
Those of us who have said that governments are not good at picking winners and losers in the marketplace and have no capacity to know which technologies should be pushed and which shouldn’t have been ignored for years. The result is the bio-fuels fiasco which is driving up food prices, destroying forests for subsidized agriculture, and is a net energy loss over the alternative. Then there’s Solyndra and its ilk, the collapse of the grand Spanish experiment in promoting solar power, the problems Germany is having with its state-subsidized solar power plans, the decommissioning of thousands of wind power turbines that were never viable in the first place and wouldn’t have existed without subsidies, and at the end of it all we’re no closer to the magic renewable power source than we were before Bush was elected.
Well, that’s not quite true. The only innovations that have mattered have come from the private sector and the creative forces of capitalism, financed by the venture capitalists and entrepreneurs that your preferred policies would punish or eliminate. The fracking revolution is the biggest force right now driving the reduction in coal power and a major reduction in CO2, and it is a totally market-driven phenomenon that was widely opposed by your side. Innovations in material science and computers coming out of the capitalist system have caused a revolution in fuel economy for cars far above government mandates, while the government-subsidized Chevy Volt is dying.
There are other market-driven answers to this problem on the horizon. Thorium fueled nuclear plants, sealed micro-reactors, and other safe nuclear technologies top the list, but the biggest risk to their deployment comes from hysterical anti-nuclear opposition on your side of the political fence.
But the real answer may come from somewhere completely unknown right now - that’s how the market works. It’s a giant laboratory - a stochastic search process that works better than any top-down ‘plan’ your side can come up with. To the extent that your preferred policies extract money and impose regulations on capitalism in favor of big government, you may be doing more harm than good.
Not how I read it, but it is not clear.
[QUOTE=lefty nonsense]
Discontinue harmful industrial processes like industrial agriculture, industrial fishing, logging, mining and so on.
[/QUOTE]
It is a list of things that have been declared harmful and shall be discontinued. The prohibition of agriculture and fishing is qualified, the prohibition on logging and mining is not. This is consistent with dogmatic beliefs common among some left leaning people that these practices are inherently harmful. I have no clue what they would allow as non “industrial”, logging and mining if that is what is meant. If so it is no less ridiculous.
The underlying theme of the dogma that I am critical of and that I contend is influential is not about cleaning up industry, but that industry and capitalism are a scourge and need to be eliminated for humanity to survive.
Then why did so many people needlessly starve and go blind while Greenpeace blocked Golden Rice? And why do we now have grandparents younger than our youngest nuclear power plants, even though it is a clear, settled matter that we rely on them, and the only other alternatives are far more dangerous?
And you show that you do not deserve them, but suffice to say, you are trying to push me again with the people that oppose nuclear energy, that is not who I am, and neither are the democratic leaders that support nuclear energy.
The reality is that you are still doing all that prose to avoid dealing with the subject at hand, what the Tea Party is doing in government with the misinformation from right wing [del]stink[/del] think tanks.
You must ignore so much to continue to claim that, it is even more silly when we are talking about what the leaders of a party are doing, on this front the majority of democrats go with most Republicans on opposing the labeling of GMO foods. And you should check the previous post on what many democrats are actually doing in government regarding nuclear power, what we should never forget is that currently it is the Tea Party the one that is letting bills that support nuclear power die just because they support nuclear in a framework of alternative power developing.
These views – and I agree with you that they are wrong – are even more moderate. You can’t justify your screed against hyper-extremism by citing much more moderate examples.
Yes, there are people who are opposed to genetically modified foods and nuclear power plants. This does not support the idea that any influential group of people want to shut down the entire world’s industrial capacity.
You’re citing opinions that are closer and closer to a moderate ideal; this is a healthy “swing to the center.” This is a good thing. I (as do you) want the swing to continue further. But it more undermines your condemnation of extremism than supports it to note that these views have only had a minor influence on certain sectors of the industrial economy: they haven’t shut it down completely.
(And you seem to agree that there is room for improvement in the world’s industry. We pollute a hell of a lot less than we did in 1975…but we do still pollute. We can celebrate the European “Reduction of Hazardous Substances” regulations which were – reluctantly – accepted and adopted by major American industries.)
These are trivial matters. So some people believe in ghosts, what harm does it do? Global warming deniers, that’s a whole other thing. What Republicans are willing to do is throw scientific truth under the bus in order to further someone’s agenda. Business sees climate science as a threat to profits- they attack the science and train the brain dead to see it as a great liberal plot. Politicians who need the whack job fundamentalist vote pass bills mandating teaching of “creation science”.
I dunno; this NY Times article indicates that the Yucca Mountain waste repository was shut down for political reasons by the Obama administration. That indicates (to me) that in some situations liberals are just as likely to avoid the science. This instance seems harmful in the long run given climate change.
I actually mentioned that incident in a previous tread to show how NIMBY triumphs, the reality is that more than a super-majority of voters in the community came opposing the location, so unless you can show that all that people became liberals you are also missing a lot of context. Many Republicans and independents were also in the opposition.
I’m sure there were some conservatives/independents in opposition but in the end it was Obama (who was able to push through ACA against tremendous conservative push-back) who stopped Yucca Mountain. During his 2008 campaign he said he planned on shutting YM down. This seems a pretty strong indicator that his liberal base was largely against YM. What’s more, GW Bush was in favor of YM.
One could potentially be for nuclear power and against YM but closing YM is certainly a blow to future nuclear power productivity.
This ignores that the democrats controlled then the Senate and the House.
And this ignores that the opposition to the nuclear dump in Nevada is a wonder of bipartisanship from the ones that live in that back yard.