I'm not so sure the science is strong that "vitamins make you healthy".
I think that's why they say they're more certain about climate change than that. Dioxin probably isn't really dangerous at a lot of Superfund sites either. But both of those are things that a lot of climate change deniers would accept as truth without questioning.
The Following User Says Thank You to Ashartus For This Useful Post:
There's very little we can do once it gets out of our hands.
This the effect of positive feedback mechanisms. The idea that once we reach a certain amount of warmer, other natural warming process are triggered like a runaway train.
The best example is permafrost in Siberia. It has gigatonnes of methane frozen in the ground. Once that ground starts to thaw from warming the methane will be released. Methane is a gas that warms the atmospher 25x more than a molecule of CO2. As more methane is released then the atmosphere warms more which leads to more thawing of the permafrost releasing more methane.
It's is the height of human hubris and stupidity to think that we can screw with a global system like the climate and then control it once we think it's gotten too out of hand. By that time there will be no controlling it. That's why we need to act now, to experience short-term pain for longer term stability.
There are numerous studies about this, but basically acting now is WAY cheaper than acting later.
If we don't take action and there are massive impacts we will pay a big price and/or we're screwed
If we don't talk action and there is no or manageable impact then all is good
If we take action and avert a major problem we've taken a hit but dodged the bullet
If we take action unnecessarily then we take a hit for no reason but in the process may develop new tech and businesses
The safest option is to do something now.
Seems that you are completely ignoring the economic consequences of "doing something now". Not sure how you can come to your conclusion honestly while doing so.
Seems that you are completely ignoring the economic consequences of "doing something now". Not sure how you can come to your conclusion honestly while doing so.
The economic consequences are orders of magnitude smaller than the costs of doing nothing. You cannot have everything. Either you work to avoid disaster now or you get disaster.
And the consequences of doing something are just not large enough to be a reason to do nothing. Most modelling of what it would take to reduce emissions by 50% by 2050 means that our growth would be 2-4% less than what it otherwise would have been if we did nothing. That's essentially nothing. It less than the insurance you pay on your house as a percentage of your net income to avoid a fire. That's an appropriate analogy. Actually, the risks of your house catching fire are significantly lower than climate change having a material and significant impact on your life yet you don't see the value in taking an insurance policy out against that. Why?
Saying that if we wait until it is worse than it is right now, we won't be able to do anything about it.
That claim is what I didn't understand. It essentially says "Today we can change things, but by tomorrow we can't at any expense."
I was just calling out his overly dramatic statement, not disagreeing that something needed to be done.
I guess we can continue to delay and keep pilling on the costs of action from this delay. I don't see that as a particularly constructive point of view though. If the costs are high now but will be much higher in the future what's the political likelihood of us doing something in the future?
And we really don't know about the system we're working with. For every bit of delay with increase the odds that there's nothing we can do in the future. Doesn't seem like a good bet to me knowing that it's cheaper and easier to do something now regardless.
Couple that with the costs of disaster and we're being reckless.
The Following User Says Thank You to Tinordi For This Useful Post:
What would you like to be done about it, immediately? The problem is obviously huge, so any one thing won't be a magic bullet solution.
Assume everyone would do exactly what you wanted and that the cost would be absorbed by enough of the nations on the planet that it wouldn't break the bank.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
Seems that you are completely ignoring the economic consequences of "doing something now". Not sure how you can come to your conclusion honestly while doing so.
There are economic consequences, no doubt. There are benefits as well. Suppose a company reduces emissions by burning less fuel - they save fuel costs. We've seen businesses improve their environmental footprints already, because it's good business.
Plus there is the opportunity to develop new industries - someone needs to produce alternate energy approaches and products.
I have no idea what the cost benefit ratio is. Let's assume it's bad and there are huge costs. How does that compare to relocating entire populations? Dramatically worsening the climate in Western Europe if the Gulf Stream reverses? Significantly more frequent and costly weather events. Destruction of sea life, extinction of species. Desertification and crop failure on a global scale. Sure these are all worst case, but they are possible, some say probable. Would you take a hit in your standard of living to avert them?
We don't know what's going to happen. Some pretty knowledgable people are predicting the worst but we can choose to ignore them, after all the could be wrong. The question is, do you feel lucky, punk? Do you?
What would you like to be done about it, immediately? The problem is obviously huge, so any one thing won't be a magic bullet solution.
Assume everyone would do exactly what you wanted and that the cost would be absorbed by enough of the nations on the planet that it wouldn't break the bank.
There is no magic bullet. That's one of the reasons why this is a wicked problem.
The biggest issue is to start pricing carbon across Canada and the rest of the world. Alberta should strengthen its SGER framework to something like 40/40 or 50/50 and then carbon tax all fossil fuels like BC. This should be done in all provinces in Canada immediately. The carbon price then needs to show real value to people. The revenue from the tax ought to go to income tax deductions and to capital spending on low carbon solutions like public transit, home retrofits, and crucially financial mechanisms for clean-tech companies to lower their costs and improve their innovation and productivity.
Next, the government would start regulating some low hanging fruit for emissions. Heavy duty diesel trucks are a start. But all new buildings will have to be at least R-80 moving forward.
Industry would get accelerated capital cost allowances for a suite of industry specific technology adoptions that makes them much more energy efficient or electricity dependent.
Finally, we would provide a production incentive for renewable and clean electricity generation.
That would be a start. It will be painful, there is no doubt. It will require unprecedented levels of leadership. It will have significant amounts of people complaining. It will also be the first step to utterly transform our energy system away from fossil fuels.
The Following User Says Thank You to Tinordi For This Useful Post:
And the consequences of doing something are just not large enough to be a reason to do nothing. Most modelling of what it would take to reduce emissions by 50% by 2050 means that our growth would be 2-4% less than what it otherwise would have been if we did nothing. That's essentially nothing. It less than the insurance you pay on your house as a percentage of your net income to avoid a fire. That's an appropriate analogy. Actually, the risks of your house catching fire are significantly lower than climate change having a material and significant impact on your life yet you don't see the value in taking an insurance policy out against that. Why?
2-4% total by 2050 is pretty small. 2-4% compounded anually is massive. Can you confirm which it is?
Seems that you are completely ignoring the economic consequences of "doing something now". Not sure how you can come to your conclusion honestly while doing so.
The economic consequences? Seriously? We're talking about potential alterations to our environment that will lead to mass extinction, of both animals and plants, which will throw all economies into chaos. Rising seas will render the coastlines huge swamps, completely destroying any value whatsoever in those properties. Changing weather patterns will create new dust bowls and give rise to pests we are unable to control, causing massive destruction to our primary sources of plant based foods and crippling economies around the globe. Acidification of the ocean will cause die offs of the small animals leading to die offs of the larger animals, leaving the oceans crippled and useless as a food source, killing off jobs and industries in almost every country. The only industries that will remain doing big business is the fossil fuel and arms manufacturers, as people/nations will go to war for the remaining areas capable of growing food. Are those economic consequences dire enough?
The whole economics argument is so flawed. It is a narrative developed by big oil because they know that if the proper steps are taken to curb climate change their industry will be greatly regulated and the obscene profits they have made over the past 20 years will become a thing of the past. The economy will shift to in a new direction and some other technology will become the primary driver. The economy will not fail, the dollars will just shift to a new driver.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
2-4% total by 2050 is pretty small. 2-4% compounded anually is massive. Can you confirm which it is?
For the math inclined, a 2% per year decrease in growth has the economy 53% smaller than it would otherwise be by 2050.
A 4% per year decrease in growth has the economy 78% smaller than it otherwise would be by 2050.
edited to add:
You're right a compound effect would be huge, as noted in the crossed out comment. I think he's probably referencing this:
Quote:
The global economic costs of limiting climate change are not insignificant but they are manageable, even for the most ambitious case, which stabilises concentrations at 450 ppm CO2-eq in the long-term. Total loss of GDP worldwide, compared to a "no action" scenario, would be equivalent to losing less than 0.1 percentage points of global GDP growth per year through to 2050, with an aggregate loss of 0.5% of GDP in 2030, and just under 2.5% in 2050.
The real problem is not the total cost of action, but how it would be distributed around the world, since many developing countries may face far bigger GDP losses than the industrial world if a straightforward global tax policy was used. For example, in the 450 ppm case, the OECD would lose 0.2% of GDP in 2030, and 1.1% in 2050, but Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) would lose five times as much – a loss of 1.4% of GDP in 2030, and 5.5% in 2050 (see Figure 2). For BRIC, for example, this would mean that the economy would increase by a factor of 4.5 from 2005 to 2050 rather than the projected 4.8 under the Baseline.
It's reduction from the reference GDP not the GDP growth rate. So by 2050 GDP would be 4% lower than it otherwise would have been.
For reference sake, not doing anything could cut global GDP by 10 to 40%. And where the hardest hit sectors may be could be fundamentally destabilizing like in the agricultural sector.
The economic consequences? Seriously? We're talking about potential alterations to our environment that will lead to mass extinction, of both animals and plants, which will throw all economies into chaos. Rising seas will render the coastlines huge swamps, completely destroying any value whatsoever in those properties. Changing weather patterns will create new dust bowls and give rise to pests we are unable to control, causing massive destruction to our primary sources of plant based foods and crippling economies around the globe. Acidification of the ocean will cause die offs of the small animals leading to die offs of the larger animals, leaving the oceans crippled and useless as a food source, killing off jobs and industries in almost every country. The only industries that will remain doing big business is the fossil fuel and arms manufacturers, as people/nations will go to war for the remaining areas capable of growing food. Are those economic consequences dire enough?
The whole economics argument is so flawed. It is a narrative developed by big oil because they know that if the proper steps are taken to curb climate change their industry will be greatly regulated and the obscene profits they have made over the past 20 years will become a thing of the past. The economy will shift to in a new direction and some other technology will become the primary driver. The economy will not fail, the dollars will just shift to a new driver.
The acidification of the ocean and the loss of its net primary productivity is one of the things that really keeps me up at night. It would have a huge impact on all living supporting systems on Earth.
Listen everybody, I know I come across as a pedantic, rude jerk on this topic but it's hard to be arguing the exact same effing points and dealing with the same refudiations of the science over the past 10 years. Meanwhile, the science has only solidified and the likelihood of disaster gets more and more real. This is the defining issue of our civilization.
I'd really just recommend this video by Dave Roberts http://grist.org/author/david-roberts/ . In it he basically summarizes the science on the imperative of action. (hell read his blog, he's the most down to earth person who understands the crisis of climate)
Listen everybody, I know I come across as a pedantic, rude jerk on this topic but it's hard to be arguing the exact same effing points and dealing with the same refudiations of the science over the past 10 years. Meanwhile, the science has only solidified and the likelihood of disaster gets more and more real. This is the defining issue of our civilization.
I'd really just recommend this video by Dave Roberts http://grist.org/author/david-roberts/ . In it he basically summarizes the science on the imperative of action. (hell read his blog, he's the most down to earth person who understands the crisis of climate)
Bull. That wasn't summarizing any science, that was summarizing the summaries, taking all science out of the discussion, and making assumptions that you will believe what he is saying as "coming from the mouths of experts".
I don't know what to think about climate change. I think some action is a good thing, because it has other positives as well. I think that there is some scientific consensus on the fact that it is happening. I think humans play a strong role in it.
BUT - there is no such thing as consensus regarding economics of this level. You think that because there is scientific consensus on the fact that temperature is rising, that because people buy that, we therefore have to swallow the rest of what you are saying whole? Bull. No one fully understands economics as well as that. No one fully understands the effects of climate change on such a complex system as the entire earth, much less on the human economy. The fact that it is happening, yeah. We can get that. but when shock doctors like this guy claim "best case scenario, hell on earth", that's total crap. What's worse, that makes me even LESS inclined to do anything, cause, you know, hell on earth is the best case scenario. Might as well get rich instead of trying to fix the unfixable.
I mean, if "hell on earth" is the best case scenario, then perhaps a limited nuclear winter might be the best solution to this problem? I mean, if I am supposed to believe you and this guy, after all.
Last edited by Knalus; 09-24-2013 at 04:34 PM.
Reason: clarity
sigh, you're almost willfully misreading the points he raises
Quote:
We can get that. but when shock doctors like this guy claim "best case scenario, hell on earth", that's total crap. What's worse, that makes me even LESS inclined to do anything, cause, you know, hell on earth is the best case scenario. Might as well get rich instead of trying to fix the unfixable.
He doesn't say this is the best case scenario he says that this is our current trajectory unless we do something about it. Pretty powerful motivator for action no? Maybe not for you but for your kids?
Quote:
BUT - there is no such thing as consensus regarding economics of this level. You think that because there is scientific consensus on the fact that temperature is rising, that because people buy that, we therefore have to swallow the rest of what you are saying whole? Bull. No one fully understands economics as well as that.
I don't get your point here. The economics of what? Hell on earth? The rest of what I'm saying is the natural progression of that basic fact. If we're headed to hell on earth then we may as well, you know, act to prevent that. I don't need an economics degree to make that connection.
If that video doesn't make you think that doing something about climate change is important then I don't know what to say.
sigh, you're almost willfully misreading the points he raises
He doesn't say this is the best case scenario he says that this is our current trajectory unless we do something about it. Pretty powerful motivator for action no? Maybe not for you but for your kids?
That's not what it sounds like. It's a powerful DEmotivator, as it makes the problem seem Sisyphean. He says "if we change.... But we won't change". He also claims that spill-over may make the effects longer lasting than we could even deal with if we start right now. This is NOT motivating in the least. There are a great many people who think that their elected officials can't do anything right anyway, this message pretty well tells individuals to give up.
If you can't do anything about it, might as well kept on and hope for the best.
