American Politics Discussion Thread

[Mjmd]

That link isn't working across multiple browsers for me. Most of the stories I've seen say its happening faster than expected, not slower. And warmer = more melting so this is likely to only keep going.

If you are willing to accept IPCC documents, 

Future rise in GMSL caused by thermal expansion, melting of glaciers and ice sheets and land water storage changes, is strongly dependent on which Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) emission scenario is followed. SLR at the end of the century is projected to be faster under all scenarios, including those compatible with achieving the long-term temperature goal set out in the Paris Agreement. GMSL will rise between 0.43 m (0.29–0.59 m, likely range; RCP2.6) and 0.84 m (0.61–1.10 m, likely range; RCP8.5) by 2100 (medium confidence) relative to 1986–2005. Beyond 2100, sea level will continue to rise for centuries due to continuing deep ocean heat uptake and mass loss of the GIS and AIS and will remain elevated for thousands of years (high confidence)

That is you will note SOMETHING. Not nothing. And that something is IF we do what we said we would. Which we aren't. They also have a lovely section on vulnerabilities, impacts, and risks related to. Again, I don't have to prove apocalyptic. I have to prove the cost of doing something is worthwhile. You have to prove doing nothing won't matter.

The Earth is observed to be undergoing average warming. Warming correlates significantly to CO2 percentages in the atmosphere. Humans are observed to contribute significantly to CO2 release in the atmosphere in addition to natural sources. All of these things are true.

If humans are a major contributor, shouldn't we try to limit our impact? You never addressed my changing weather issue. There are all sorts of crops that will be affected. Just today I've seen a story about maple syrup (can confirm its been weird weather, that is the one other forum I check is a maple syrup site) and on way home from store heard cost of bananas increasing due to warming weather. These are not 0 cost, this is not nothing already.

[greenline]

That is you will note SOMETHING. Not nothing. And that something is IF we do what we said we would. Which we aren't. They also have a lovely section on vulnerabilities, impacts, and risks related to. Again, I don't have to prove apocalyptic. I have to prove the cost of doing something is worthwhile. You have to prove doing nothing won't matter.

I did not deny the existence of some melting, some sea level change. The apocalyptic claims need proving because the IPCC and politicians influenced by it demand large scale changes. A mean sea level change of .43 m is not worth anyone's time or money to address. Most low lying port cities will handle it through land subsidence, as they have been doing for centuries.

If humans are a major contributor, shouldn't we try to limit our impact? You never addressed my changing weather issue. There are all sorts of crops that will be affected. Just today I've seen a story about maple syrup (can confirm its been weird weather, that is the one other forum I check is a maple syrup site) and on way home from store heard cost of bananas increasing due to warming weather. These are not 0 cost, this is not nothing already.

Economically, it makes no sense to address the potential rising costs of maple syrup and bananas from unusual weather by attacking the industrial economy that enables, among other things, long distance shipping of maple syrup and bananas. Realistic green measures (one that would significantly reduce carbon emissions rather than serving as a roundabout tax on red state and general Americans) would drive up the prices of all goods, including agricultural ones, far more than simply letting farmers adjust to weather changes by trying out different crops and crop breeds.

[Boro]

I'll add that the European Green Deal has farmers protest from france to Romania, with Romania at least yielding to the masses' demands.

[Mjmd]

I should note the .43 is IF we achieve the goals in the Paris Climate Agreement, which again, we aren't.

So this is change of subject. You are changing from the result is nothing and we should therefore do nothing, to you don't like the policy to prevent an uncertain something. FINE. DO SOMETHING ELSE. I grew up in a conservative household, but part of my frustration with the Republican party that has shifted me over time was they would say "we don't like the Democrats solution" and then just never offer up another solution. They just deny its a problem or fear monger over what Democrats want to do. Things like investing in an updated electric grid (somewhat part of infrastructure bill) and then building a bunch of solar plants in bunch of red states with lots of sun, which would create jobs and industry in those states. Sure lets do it; solar is becoming very cost competitive. This blatantly helps red states, DO IT. There are lots of states that can do wind and often time those projects benefit farmers in conservative areas. DO IT. In general trying to get more things to be energy efficiency across a wide range of areas is a good long term investment. You can not agree with going all electric but still support hybrid. Things like longer lasting and better charging batteries are not limited in application. It is a great industry to try to get going and good tech to have. I'm not really worried about long distance shipping, you can leave that based of fossil fuels, its pretty efficient as is and a very small source of emissions. But ya roll out some moves to invest in American green energy production and industries. Will that hurt fossil fuel profits, sure (which is why Republicans will never do). But if you don't want to ban or limit you don't have to. Just invest in getting started. I'm sure there are other ideas I'm not thinking of right now, that could also benefit both our emissions and our country as a whole. I just want some mitigation effort, instead of just denial. This is smart politically because you can stop looking like science deniers which is a major turnoff and also can funnel investment into states and areas you care about. The problem is that yes even if you didn't directly limit fossil fuel emissions the fact you are getting other things going would hurt their profits and there is a heck of a lot of donor money to be had. You can see why I think the truth may be some bias in the rhetoric of nothing bad will happen. But don't tell me there aren't solutions that couldn't benefit red states, they just would hurt a major donor group. I will play a small fiddle for them as the world burns.

If the answer isn't nothing will happen we need to something. If we don't do something its only going to be harder to limit or mitigate down the road. So politically its better to do something you can live with now and not have to go "oh crap we messed up emergency methods go".

[greenline]

Texas is already one of the lead American manufacturers of wind energy equipment and other renewable goods. Red state Americans as a whole aren't opposed to building renewable infrastructure when there is natural demand for it. What they do oppose are subsidies and taxes designed to artificially raise the demand for renewables. This may create some jobs in these areas, but is a net loss overall since everyone has to pay for it, and likely higher energy costs as well. California, which has pushed hard for renewable energy to the exclusion of fossil fuels in the last 10 years, has seen both soaring energy prices and frequent blackouts - not a good look.

You frame the choice to make these taxes and subsidies as 'helping the country', but from the perspective of anyone who doesn't drink the IPCC's kool-aid, then they are only helping satisfy the neurotic urges of rich liberals who think the apocalypse is coming based on bogus estimates and bad models.

[Mjmd]

Everyone is going to have to pay for climate change. Again, if the answer is something will happen, we will all have to pay, the question is how much. There are many factors into California energy prices, wildfires (climate change making worse) and yes they transitioned fast meaning a lot of the start up costs got combined. There are other factors, but those seem the most relevant for us. Is the lesson here not to do it at all or to just do slower? Green energy is cost competitive long term, but it does have high start up costs. I'm not saying switch in 10 years like California, but 25 sounds reasonable. Again, an argument for slow transitioning starting NOW vs not doing anything and then realizing we need to do all at once later. Coal does need to go NOW. Its super expensive comparatively and its one of the worst polluters. Is getting rid of coal as fast as possible and then slowly doing rest too much to ask? Is that a compromise position we can all do pretty please?

When should the government do subsidies? I've thought on this before again as part of an attempt not to be self blinded. Old industries - doesn't seem great; they should either already be up and running or they aren't competitive. But yet we still have fossil fuel subsidies (who are already super profitable), farm subsidies, and a whole boat load of other ones Republicans don't complain about, but aren't really in line with capitalism. New industries with promising potential - this is where I can be persuaded to do some. Are more efficient batteries not something that seems useful long term even without impact on climate change. If there is the bonus that it saves us money down the line thanks to reducing impacts from climate change, this seems like a no brainer. Just consider it farm subsidies so we don't have to do even more farm subsidies in the future due to changing weather.

[greenline]

The cost paid for climate change - for some increased heat wave deaths, increased land subsidence, and agricultural costs due to weather shifting, is marginal when compared to the cost currently paid by California for the minor green step of removing fossil fuels from electricity production. California has seen some of the highest net migration out of the state in part owing to such costs. The lesson is not that one should never build solar or wind farms, but that such things are fragile and costly compared to employing oil and coal production when appropriate. Texas's ice storm showed another way in which wind power can be vulnerable.

There are certainly issues with the New Deal and Reagan subsidies that still lay around. They are easier to see a motive for the common good in their application. Food subsidies lower the consumer cost of food, and everyone needs to eat. Oil subsidies lower the cost of transportation and various industrial processes, which are needed for competitive industries, and lowering the cost of transportation lowers the cost of any good that needs to be moved. The damage from climate change has to be apocalyptic to warrant raising these prices, as otherwise it would be cheaper and more effective to focus on climate mitigation instead of trying to suppress fossil fuels for the sake of the climate. And if it isn't apocalyptic, as reality would suggest, then there's no reason to put such measures in place.

[Mjmd]

Is it marginal? Will it be marginal? Again, it depends what % you believe the estimates and again at 20% it won't be marginal. It doesn't take much to believe that California is paying to help all of us and we need to step up to help. Long term their costs will come down or stay stable as they won't have the start up costs to pay for anymore (not that other weather related costs or outside factors couldn't occur, but the start up costs will be absent). Again, coal planets would be a good place to start for everyone. They aren't cost competitive and they are the worst offenders. Again, lets invest in some infrastructure to help rural areas out and get it done. This should be the easy part. Ah yes the mythical problems with wind turbines during the Texas ice storm. Or maybe the Texas energy company cheaped out on winterizing a lot of their infrastructure and needed a scapegoat. We have plenty of wind turbines in Wisconsin and they work just fine in the winter. There is a broader conversation on how energy companies should be run. The California company was also skipping maintenance like the Texas one.

But we are paying for those subsidies with our tax dollars so its still paying. Those food subsidies also destabilize entire nations because it gives our farmers advantage in the subsidized crops. Their are alternatives to this. When the eastern bloc joined the EU there were issues because they were producing food much cheaper than the wests farmers. A lot of those farmers in the west then started producing different crops; some of them did go under. If you wanted some subsidizes in food just to keep production going you should lower somewhat and make them broader so farmers can grow whats best in their circumstance not just what is most subsidized. You could subsidize transportation in new ways, you know like hybrid vehicles as a start. Do you have to subsidize the industry causing damage to the planet? Or you could subsidize both while changing over. And again, the cost doesn't have to be apocalyptic, it just has to be more than doing something about it now. Again, if we spend $50billion a year now to save $100 billion in the future, this is a good deal. Even if the total damage / year would only be $500B. $500B isn't apocalyptic, but its bad. Knocking $100B of that a year for a $50B investment now makes sense. Again, I ask you to challenge your assumptions. Why are you defending subsidies to one group while saying the other is too expense? Could it be the media you consume? Why not do both for a while if you insist? Again, I just want more movement. I have no delusions about anyone actually touching fossil fuel subsidies. Even when Democrats did their infrastructure bill there was a section that helped subsidize oil companies. But they also passed paid for subsidies to help green initiatives. I'm not a huge fan of doing both, but two steps forward 1 step back is better than not going forward at all. Again, the more we do now, the less likely we have to do more later.

[darrelljs]

Get a room you two .

Darrell

[greenline]

Eternally chasing the last word...