Options

Climate Change or: Is it hot in here? And cold? And on fire? And Underwater?!

1235

Posts

  • Options
    khainkhain Registered User regular
    It's also going to take a huge hit when people realize the economic impact of it on their personal life. Healthcare proposals have the same issue where they poll extremely well until you start talking about funding.

  • Options
    OghulkOghulk Tinychat Janitor TinychatRegistered User regular
    Yeah, regardless of how climate change legislation is funded we're talking potentially half a trillion a year in spending or 2.5% of gdp in spending. That's pretty significant.

  • Options
    MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Yeah, they deliberately withheld whose plan it was. It would obviously have less republican support if they knew it came from dirty liberals, but those are still good numbers to work with.

    The bolded is just SOOOOO fucked up, I can't even begin to describe how I feel about it.

    I mean, it's a little different in the US than at home, because of how many issues both sides can't agree on. Everything is a wedge, almost nothing is bipartisan). But the loathing the right has for the left, and the utter contempt the left has for the right, the "my team" sports mentality that it takes on, and the extremes this drives the parties towards, I just don't see how you guys ever get back to normal.

  • Options
    CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    I'm pretty sure the moderate left would love to get back to acting like gentlemen and cordially "agreeing to disagree" with the right, but the right has to stop constantly backstabbing and being fruitloop crazy. Climate change is very hard to talk about with the right because they simply don't believe in it. How can you start a conversation when the other side plugs their ears and screams when you broach the subject?

  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    The right has always disagreed that we should do anything about climate change, but their justifications have evolved. It started as "temperatures aren't even rising", then changed to "temperatures are rising, but that's just the normal climate cycle", then to "this is abnormal change, but humans have nothing to do with it," and currently seems to exist as "humans drastically affected the climate, but it's not like that's necessarily a bad thing."

    I'm pretty sure they're holding out until they can skip to "Okay, the world is fucked, but it's too late to do anything about it now, sucks to be the younger generation."

    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    I seem to recall the latest report is basically that.

  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    We're not so fucked yet that there's literally nothing to be done about it. At least some bad stuff is inevitable, but we're not talking about the human race dying out as a foregone conclusion.

    Yet.

    Basically, a core plank of conservative thought it "we will never bother doing anything about the climate if it will in any way negatively impact the economy." We will never get those people on board. Rank and file Republican voters, maybe. The true believers, though, just straight up don't care if the world burns as long as they don't have to spend a dime on it.

    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    OghulkOghulk Tinychat Janitor TinychatRegistered User regular
    I'm of the mind that conservative voters can be convinced on certain policies, and that's having grown up in Texas and engaged with these people a lot.

    A big part of the problem is that the set of axioms from which we use to make arguments on the left are not the same set as on the right, and we have to adjust that at times.

  • Options
    CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited February 2019
    The hard right also thinks White Jesus is going to swoop down and buy them a new Earth, so they have a responsibility to ignore the issue because they are special and will not have to deal with the consequences. The consequences are exclusively for Those People.

    Cantido on
    3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
  • Options
    SpoitSpoit *twitch twitch* Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    We're not so fucked yet that there's literally nothing to be done about it. At least some bad stuff is inevitable, but we're not talking about the human race dying out as a foregone conclusion.

    Yet.

    Basically, a core plank of conservative thought it "we will never bother doing anything about the climate if it will in any way negatively impact the economy." We will never get those people on board. Rank and file Republican voters, maybe. The true believers, though, just straight up don't care if the world burns as long as they don't have to spend a dime on it.

    Hell, they're often refusing to go with it even when the economic incentives favor renewables over coal!

    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    While I think there are inroads to be made on the right on this issue the real power behind something like the GND is its ability to mobilize people, especially the young, who are not otherwise reliable voters.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    While I think there are inroads to be made on the right on this issue the real power behind something like the GND is its ability to mobilize people, especially the young, who are not otherwise reliable voters.

    Even if you took the “Green” out of it

    It’s basically policy porn for young liberals

  • Options
    tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    The GND is polling really well so far, so that's promising. 80% support is kind of unreal.

    https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/421765-poll-majorities-of-both-parties-support-green-new-deal

    But, as a counterpoint, if the documents I’ve been provided in this thread are real, and those I’d seen earlier aren’t (which contained more concrete statements of what the green new deal meant) then the green new deal sent a real piece of policy. It’s just a series of vague statements about doing stuff, with no real sophistication about how we get there. I mean, here’s a potential real idea which you’d have to do as part of a major push on climate change...

    1) The US top rate of tax will return to pre trump tax plan levels and increase by 5%
    2) The US will introduce a federal carbon tax, the immediate visible effect of this to consumers will be a 40c per gallon gas tax
    3) The US military budget is hereby cut by 15%.
    4) the savings and increased revenue from this effort shall create a new agency, the green new deal agency, whose responsibility shall be to attempt to lower US greenhouse emissions by 50% in absolute terms within 15 years, and assist international partners in lowering their emissions by an additional 10% beyond their own plans.
    5) it shall do this by spending at least 25% of its budget on technology research, the results of which will be shared freely, and t least 25% of its budget building new renewable infrastructure, with the remaining 50% to be spent at the discretion of the scientific board
    6) The green new deal agency shall commit to create at least X million jobs, paying a median of $35000

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • Options
    The Cow KingThe Cow King a island Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Yeah, regardless of how climate change legislation is funded we're talking potentially half a trillion a year in spending or 2.5% of gdp in spending. That's pretty significant.

    3.6% for military so if we abolish it we get rid of one of the worlds largest polluters and the US can finally spend its wealth on something useful

    Or is this a no go

    icGJy2C.png
  • Options
    SanderJKSanderJK Crocodylus Pontifex Sinterklasicus Madrid, 3000 ADRegistered User regular
    The problem with energy transition isn't that we don't know the solutions.
    It's that they are incredibly unpopular policy wise.

    In order to safeguard the planet for our grand children do the following:

    Cut flying by 90%. This step can only be cut if there's somehow CO2 neutral kerosene, which could be made from biofuels at great economic and land usage costs.

    Isolate all houses up to the highest standards. This costs between 25% and 130% of a properties value, depending mostly on the age, if they are free standing, and how cold/hot the climate is. This is particularly difficult in the USA.

    Building 0 usage houses is already quite possible and perhaps even economically viable long term depending on the climate and energy cost forecasts. But modifying existing property is tough.

    Almost stop eating meat. Especially beef. Maybe 25g / day average.

    Mostly stop eating imported foods.

    Drastically reduce driving on fossil fuels.

    All of greenhouse production is energy production. You can, on the highest level, only turn 2 knobs.
    Either you produce energy without greenhouses gasses, or you stop using energy.

    And because these warnings were ignored for 30 years, time is pretty much already running out.

    Energy plants and houses, the 2 biggest contribution in these equations are build on 30-50 year time scales. And what's being built today still sucks.

    Every year this doesn't get adressed the costs get higher because the intervention needs to be more drastic.

    My country, which has already been abiding by Kyoto and is at least working on the Paris standards, has run out of cheap solutions at roughly 20% reduction over 25 years. And as the incremental price or inconvience per tonne CO2 reduced increases it is turning into a political slugfest.

    Steam: SanderJK Origin: SanderJK
  • Options
    tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    SanderJK wrote: »
    The problem with energy transition isn't that we don't know the solutions.
    It's that they are incredibly unpopular policy wise.

    In order to safeguard the planet for our grand children do the following:

    Cut flying by 90%. This step can only be cut if there's somehow CO2 neutral kerosene, which could be made from biofuels at great economic and land usage costs.

    Isolate all houses up to the highest standards. This costs between 25% and 130% of a properties value, depending mostly on the age, if they are free standing, and how cold/hot the climate is. This is particularly difficult in the USA.

    Building 0 usage houses is already quite possible and perhaps even economically viable long term depending on the climate and energy cost forecasts. But modifying existing property is tough.

    Almost stop eating meat. Especially beef. Maybe 25g / day average.

    Mostly stop eating imported foods.

    Drastically reduce driving on fossil fuels.

    All of greenhouse production is energy production. You can, on the highest level, only turn 2 knobs.
    Either you produce energy without greenhouses gasses, or you stop using energy.

    And because these warnings were ignored for 30 years, time is pretty much already running out.

    Energy plants and houses, the 2 biggest contribution in these equations are build on 30-50 year time scales. And what's being built today still sucks.

    Every year this doesn't get adressed the costs get higher because the intervention needs to be more drastic.

    My country, which has already been abiding by Kyoto and is at least working on the Paris standards, has run out of cheap solutions at roughly 20% reduction over 25 years. And as the incremental price or inconvience per tonne CO2 reduced increases it is turning into a political slugfest.

    It's actually looking like electric airplanes will be perfectly practical in the medium term, short term for short flights, so we can at least choose where we spend our energy budget. Wanna be vegetarian? Then you get an international flight every year!

    The only thing that truly upsets me is that if we had just bloody listened and used the tech we had in 2000 and beyond we'd be in so much of a better space now, we'd have like a century to fully wean ourselves off fossil fuels, from a lower maximum. And it wouldn't even have cost anything! Just build solar and wind when it starts being good, and nuclear before that, and don't build more coal. It's really annoying.

    Honestly. The cheapest c02 reduction package after you replace 20% of your grid energy with renewables is massive investment in women's education in developing countries. Anywhere which hasn't had a population explosion yet. For the cost of 10% co2 cuts you could probably get 10% cuts to maximum population just by educating women.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • Options
    Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    SanderJK wrote: »
    The problem with energy transition isn't that we don't know the solutions.
    It's that they are incredibly unpopular policy wise.

    That's an understatement. I figure you have as much chance of getting people to agree to any one of those, let alone all of them, as you do of persuading half of the world's population to voluntarily commit suicide for the benefit of the other half.

    It's the macro scale version of the guy who goes to the doctor and is told to cut everything "good" out of his life / diet / etc and live like a monk. Many will decide such a life "isn't worth living" and just keep on with their bad habits until it does kill them.

  • Options
    OghulkOghulk Tinychat Janitor TinychatRegistered User regular
    SanderJK wrote: »
    The problem with energy transition isn't that we don't know the solutions.
    It's that they are incredibly unpopular policy wise.

    That's an understatement. I figure you have as much chance of getting people to agree to any one of those, let alone all of them, as you do of persuading half of the world's population to voluntarily commit suicide for the benefit of the other half.

    It's the macro scale version of the guy who goes to the doctor and is told to cut everything "good" out of his life / diet / etc and live like a monk. Many will decide such a life "isn't worth living" and just keep on with their bad habits until it does kill them.

    Which is why economists like taxes: it internalizes the actual social cost of things that may be detrimental to you, and what do you know the evidence shows people stop using them to a high degree.

  • Options
    TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    SanderJK wrote: »
    The problem with energy transition isn't that we don't know the solutions.
    It's that they are incredibly unpopular policy wise.

    That's an understatement. I figure you have as much chance of getting people to agree to any one of those, let alone all of them, as you do of persuading half of the world's population to voluntarily commit suicide for the benefit of the other half.

    It's the macro scale version of the guy who goes to the doctor and is told to cut everything "good" out of his life / diet / etc and live like a monk. Many will decide such a life "isn't worth living" and just keep on with their bad habits until it does kill them.

    Which is why economists like taxes: it internalizes the actual social cost of things that may be detrimental to you, and what do you know the evidence shows people stop using them to a high degree.

    And yet, the France protests (still ongoing) make that idea a non-starter unless it comes with at least an exception for the transport sector.

  • Options
    Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    edited February 2019
    Oghulk wrote: »
    SanderJK wrote: »
    The problem with energy transition isn't that we don't know the solutions.
    It's that they are incredibly unpopular policy wise.

    That's an understatement. I figure you have as much chance of getting people to agree to any one of those, let alone all of them, as you do of persuading half of the world's population to voluntarily commit suicide for the benefit of the other half.

    It's the macro scale version of the guy who goes to the doctor and is told to cut everything "good" out of his life / diet / etc and live like a monk. Many will decide such a life "isn't worth living" and just keep on with their bad habits until it does kill them.

    Which is why economists like taxes: it internalizes the actual social cost of things that may be detrimental to you, and what do you know the evidence shows people stop using them to a high degree.

    Yes, but how do you deal with the patient (voters) firing the doctor who imposed that regimen and finding another who'll sign off on a "repeal all those taxes and regulations" prescription and let them keep living as they please?

    Commander Zoom on
  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    The thing about 'wait for a Democratic majority' is that it's historically failed to solve the issue. Dems benefit from being Not Republicans and Making Sensible Proposals In This Political Environment, the kicker being that their material interests are more aligned with their Republican counterparts than they are with ours.

    Support for the GND at the very least needs to be a litmus test for whether an incumbent faces a ferocious primary challenger.

  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited February 2019
    The real problem is that, for a lot of people, the analogy is more like the doctor saying "cut all these bad things out of your life or your neighbor will die."

    A lot of old people honestly don't give a shit if young people die, or people in impoverished nations, or some hypothetical descendants. Many of them are going to kick off from old age before the really bad stuff starts happening.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    SanderJK wrote: »
    The problem with energy transition isn't that we don't know the solutions.
    It's that they are incredibly unpopular policy wise.

    That's an understatement. I figure you have as much chance of getting people to agree to any one of those, let alone all of them, as you do of persuading half of the world's population to voluntarily commit suicide for the benefit of the other half.

    It's the macro scale version of the guy who goes to the doctor and is told to cut everything "good" out of his life / diet / etc and live like a monk. Many will decide such a life "isn't worth living" and just keep on with their bad habits until it does kill them.

    Which is why economists like taxes: it internalizes the actual social cost of things that may be detrimental to you, and what do you know the evidence shows people stop using them to a high degree.

    Yes, but how do you deal with the patient (voters) firing the doctor who imposed that regimen and finding another who'll sign off on a "repeal all those taxes and regulations" prescription and let them keep living as they please?

    Thats why I think the GND is much smarter policy. Liberalism offers a lot of sticks but few carrots, but AOC seems to get that you have to actually do things for people in a nonabstract sense.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    A lot of old people's brains have been turned to pudding by a concerted propaganda network, so if a mob with torches and pitchforks identified Fox News and Facebook as obstacles to survival of humanity then they wouldn't be wrong.

  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Democratic majorities (especially in the Senate) rely on states with interests (read: coal and automobiles) that hurt their ability to commit to climate legislation. Whatever bill they pass needs to get through Manchin or Sinema in 2021. Assuming they nuke the filibuster this time.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    OghulkOghulk Tinychat Janitor TinychatRegistered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »

    Every proposal for a carbon tax is usually connected with policies to make it revenue neutral, such as an expansion of the EITC or the welfare state.

    Like, carbon taxes have been passed in quite a few places and have seen the benefits from it. It's not exactly a new thing.
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    The real problem is that, for a lot of people, the analogy is more like the doctor saying "cut all these bad things out of your life or your neighbor will die."

    A lot of old people honestly don't give a shit if young people die, or people in impoverished nations, or some hypothetical descendants. Many of them are going to kick off from old age before the really bad stuff starts happening.

    This is really kind of the issue. Until the effects actually hurt you, you don't care about climate change.

    Hence why stuff like Hurricane Harvey and PG&E's wildfire have started forcing companies to price in the effects of climate change in the insurance market. Which, well, at least it's a step.

  • Options
    discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    ...
    All this talk about how policy will fail to work makes me think more and more about whether you guys could have the next D president declare a 'climate emergency' and have the military just unilaterally do stuff.

    And then declare that President Caesar, and everything probably goes bad in a different manner.

  • Options
    KetBraKetBra Dressed Ridiculously Registered User regular
    KGMvDLc.jpg?1
  • Options
    ReaperSMSReaperSMS Registered User regular
    If that's the one ars had an article about, that doesn't kick in until around 1200ppm -- and that's way past the point of general cognitive impairment.

    So maybe if we get near that point, we'll be too dumb to operate the things that spew out the co2?

  • Options
    SmrtnikSmrtnik job boli zub Registered User regular
    KetBra wrote: »

    Sunny Northern Canada: the new Key West

    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    edited February 2019
    KetBra wrote: »

    I find that report hard to believe.
    I don't think we'll get to triple the current concentration of CO2 in the first place; maybe if the planet is already literally on fire?

    But I would have thought the cloud layer would move higher as things get warmer and as the atmosphere gets thicker underneath it.
    That is, there'll be more water in the atmosphere, and it will condense against space somewhere in the atmospheric column.
    The water could be absorbed by an increase in humidity at ground level, but even so I imagine that convection still takes a great deal skyward.

    The explanation suggests that the interface, however high it may be, has a smaller temperature difference across it that prevents the clouds.
    Which seems to suggest that higher layer has also changed composition and is retaining heat, but I don't know why the CO2 would get past that divide to warm the other side rather than just defining the start of the divide.

    I don't know.
    This simulation runs counter to what I'd expect.

    discrider on
  • Options
    MayabirdMayabird Pecking at the keyboardRegistered User regular
    ReaperSMS wrote: »
    If that's the one ars had an article about, that doesn't kick in until around 1200ppm -- and that's way past the point of general cognitive impairment.

    So maybe if we get near that point, we'll be too dumb to operate the things that spew out the co2?

    Civilization would have collapsed long before we reached CO2 levels that high.

    Anyway, something I'm not seeing talked about widely is the first ever recorded category 5 storm in the Northern Hemisphere in February - Super Typhoon Wutip. It passed south of Guam, dropping a lot of rain but being far enough away that the winds were not destructive.

  • Options
    themightypuckthemightypuck MontanaRegistered User regular
    ReaperSMS wrote: »
    If that's the one ars had an article about, that doesn't kick in until around 1200ppm -- and that's way past the point of general cognitive impairment.

    So maybe if we get near that point, we'll be too dumb to operate the things that spew out the co2?

    I'm skeptical of the notion that general cognitive impairment happens well south of 1200ppm. I've seen a number of n < 30 studies but my guess is nothing so far has moved the approx. 5000ppm workplace exposure limit in most jurisdictions.

    “Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius

    Path of Exile: themightypuck
  • Options
    Metzger MeisterMetzger Meister It Gets Worse before it gets any better.Registered User regular

    I have this article behind a spoiler because Vice is annoying sometimes but also because the article and the academic paper it is about is very bleak. So, go in prepared.

  • Options
    OghulkOghulk Tinychat Janitor TinychatRegistered User regular
    It's a paper that wasn't published in any academic journal or pass peer-review. Worth remembering when viewing this article saying it's inevitable within a decade.

  • Options
    Jealous DevaJealous Deva Registered User regular
    Mayabird wrote: »
    ReaperSMS wrote: »
    If that's the one ars had an article about, that doesn't kick in until around 1200ppm -- and that's way past the point of general cognitive impairment.

    So maybe if we get near that point, we'll be too dumb to operate the things that spew out the co2?

    Civilization would have collapsed long before we reached CO2 levels that high.

    Anyway, something I'm not seeing talked about widely is the first ever recorded category 5 storm in the Northern Hemisphere in February - Super Typhoon Wutip. It passed south of Guam, dropping a lot of rain but being far enough away that the winds were not destructive.

    Again we pretty much have a historical mode of what happens when CO2 gets to 1000+ levels -the paleocene eocene maximum- it isn’t pretty, but it isn’t venus either. Civilizational collapse and cessation of emissions should long precede concentrations necessary for human extinction.

  • Options
    PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    edited February 2019
    Oghulk wrote: »
    It's a paper that wasn't published in any academic journal or pass peer-review. Worth remembering when viewing this article saying it's inevitable within a decade.

    With the additional caveat that is a tenured academic whose CV looks legitimate. Combined with the discussion on the linked page of why reviewers were hesitant to publish the paper upon review, it is at least worth talking about.

    Phillishere on
  • Options
    VeeveeVeevee WisconsinRegistered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    It's a paper that wasn't published in any academic journal or pass peer-review. Worth remembering when viewing this article saying it's inevitable within a decade.

    With the additional caveat that is a tenured academic whose CV looks legitimate. Combined with the discussion on the linked page of why reviewers were hesitant to publish the paper upon review, it is at least worth talking about.

    To me it reads as a well cited blog post whose purpose is to scare the reader into immediate action to mitigate what damages we can due to climate change. It is very compelling, but I can understand why it was rejected. To me, it was like a mod here telling us to stop chicken littering.

    Was that the proper response from the journals? I have no idea, but I don't see it as some nefarious plot to silence him as the author seems to claim.

This discussion has been closed.