Global warming

[eastmen]

I doubt that people in the U.S.A. for instance will conciously reduce their consumption of coffee, soy bean products etc in order to ensure that food remains affordable for the poorest in the world. Given the rise in food prices over the last few years, this doesn't appear to be the case. To be quite frank, so long as it happens in another country most people would let others starve to death.

Are you sure thats the case and its not the fact that USA is moving towards organic foods and thus reducing output of beef and produce

 

[gamervivek]

Why are you trying to make me pay to help non-Americans? I would never agree to that.

hahaahahha

edit: " I would never agree" "help non-Americans" ....what a joke.

 

[KimB]

So you're trying to hide the extra costs to me as a middle-class American by taxing my energy more but giving me more of a social net as a benefit. How about we take out the AGW part but keep everything else in there? I'd be even better off since I'd still get the social net benefits and also won't have to pay extra energy taxes.

Um, a social safety net requires taxes to pay for it. Carbon taxes will increase federal revenue, reducing the need for other taxes to pay for an improved social safety net.

 

[corduroygt]

Um, a social safety net requires taxes to pay for it. Carbon taxes will increase federal revenue, reducing the need for other taxes to pay for an improved social safety net.

It'll still be more than just having a social net, a lot of which is already in place with welfare and unemployment. Healthcare is the main one that needs reform. I am not paying for a social net for people from other countries.

 

[KimB]

It'll still be more than just having a social net, a lot of which is already in place with welfare and unemployment. Healthcare is the main one that needs reform. I am not paying for a social net for people from other countries.

And it is only in your imagination that anybody is suggesting this.

 

[corduroygt]

And it is only in your imagination that anybody is suggesting this.

You still have not given any figures on how much this carbon tax is going to affect America and how will she benefit from it. In case you haven't looked at a map, the USA is huge with a very low population density. Distances are long here and we need cheap, personal, individual transportation. Taxing that will screw up the whole economy. So how on earth is this carbon tax cheaper than just extending the levees around Florida by 1 meter in 100 years? Once again, why should we even care about other countries in the world and how they suffer?

 

[KimB]

You still have not given any figures on how much this carbon tax is going to affect America and how will she benefit from it.

Well, that would require a very specific proposal for the tax, wouldn't it? Obviously, for any carbon tax initiative to be reasonable, it needs to be accompanied by some combination of tax cuts and transfers to lower-income families. Since the goal of a carbon tax is not to raise revenue, but instead to change consumer behavior, ideally a carbon tax would be structured so that it has net zero (or close to it) overall impact on peoples' incomes.

If you were concerned about a specific initiative for raising taxes, then your objections might make sense. But since this is all up in the air at the moment, with the politics in the US being gridlocked with stupid (i.e. Republicans), there just aren't any specific initiatives out there. Obviously there are good ways and bad ways of doing anything, so whining that there are bad ways of doing something is just an excuse on your part.

So how on earth is this carbon tax cheaper than just extending the levees around Florida by 1 meter in 100 years?

Ahem. Do you know the cost of placing levees around Florida? And it's not like this is remotely close to the only negative impact from carbon emissions over the next century.

 

[Squilliam]

How about a carbon laxative?

 

[Blazkowicz]

Ahem. Do you know the cost of placing levees around Florida? And it's not like this is remotely close to the only negative impact from carbon emissions over the next century.

it's huge, but at least it's easy - burn a few millions oil barrels here and there to move millions tons of rocks over there.
in our modern times, human will, bravour and spirit of endeavour and ingeniosity can accomplish anything, achieving exploits that empire builders and pharaohs couldn't dream of! (with a big enough gas tank)

 

[corduroygt]

Since the goal of a carbon tax is not to raise revenue, but instead to change consumer behavior, ideally a carbon tax would be structured so that it has net zero (or close to it) overall impact on peoples' incomes.

If by change you mean "give up cars and spacious suburban homes" and move to cramped apartments in cities and use public transport, We'd rather drown in floods than to be subject to such living standards here. This is not Europe, and we like the fact that we are not Europe. We'd rather be stuck in traffic in our own car than be squished into small apartments, buses and trains.

Ahem. Do you know the cost of placing levees around Florida? And it's not like this is remotely close to the only negative impact from carbon emissions over the next century.

Most of our agriculture is already irrigated here, so I'd like to see what else there would be to affect the United States. The places that are at risk of flooding already have levees, extending them by 1m, spread over 100 years, would not cost much.

 

[KimB]

If by change you mean "give up cars and spacious suburban homes" and move to cramped apartments in cities and use public transport, We'd rather drown in floods than to be subject to such living standards here.

Really? You'd rather die than live a little bit closer to other people? What in the hell is wrong with you?

Most of our agriculture is already irrigated here, so I'd like to see what else there would be to affect the United States. The places that are at risk of flooding already have levees, extending them by 1m, spread over 100 years, would not cost much.

It seems you think technology is magic. Irrigation does not produce water out of nothing. That water has to come from somewhere, and severe droughts hurt US production of crops just as they hurt the production of crops in other places.

Furthermore, we're not talking about a few levees here, a few there. We're talking about needing to either build thousands of miles of levees, or evacuate large sections of coast land. The difference in scale is simply tremendous.

 

[Mintmaster]

for the poor it's easy. poors already use efficient technology (bicycles, dumb phones), use a computer monitor until it doesn't work, don't have A/C, can talk to people on the street for free, set up and attend concerts for free, give away stuff and services to each other.
they don't have much of a "life-style" to lose from energy-reducing actions but they also play a significant part in the non-GDP economy.

In absolute terms, you're right, but relatively speaking the poor spend a far larger portion of their income on energy. This is not a very convincing argument.

 

[Mintmaster]

Really? You'd rather die than live a little bit closer to other people? What in the hell is wrong with you?

Chalnoth, don't be stupid. Few if any people will die in the developed world from AGW, and the cost of saving those that do by CO2 reduction will be >100x more than the cost of saving people dying from other causes.

Furthermore, we're not talking about a few levees here, a few there. We're talking about needing to either build thousands of miles of levees, or evacuate large sections of coast land. The difference in scale is simply tremendous.

We're not going to avert this cost with GHG reduction. At best, we can reduce AGW by a few percent by spending trillions of dollars (at today's non-nuclear green energy prices). Marginal benefit does not come within an order of magnitude of marginal cost right now.

 

[corduroygt]

Really? You'd rather die than live a little bit closer to other people? What in the hell is wrong with you?

Sorry, I meant to say I'd rather have other people drown than have me being forced into mass transport and a small apartment.

It seems you think technology is magic. Irrigation does not produce water out of nothing. That water has to come from somewhere, and severe droughts hurt US production of crops just as they hurt the production of crops in other places.
Furthermore, we're not talking about a few levees here, a few there. We're talking about needing to either build thousands of miles of levees, or evacuate large sections of coast land. The difference in scale is simply tremendous.

Alarmism once again, there is no hurry for reducing carbon emissions and its effects will be nowhere near as disastrous as the ultra loony hippie econmentalists claim. There is plenty of time to move/resettle/fortify the places at risk. Where I live, sea levels rising by 1m has virtually no impact, and that's only after I die anyways, so I don't care one bit.
Again, maybe poor countries can't afford this but being poor means virtually no infrastructure, so they can easily move to higher ground.

 

[hoho]

Once again, why should we even care about other countries in the world and how they suffer?

For one thing if US companies would end their import-export business for goods and workforce it will mean massive increase in prices in US.

Most of our agriculture is already irrigated here, so I'd like to see what else there would be to affect the United States

You do realize that big parts of US are running out of water, right?

Where I live, sea levels rising by 1m has virtually no impact, and that's only after I die anyways, so I don't care one bit.

How many (grand)kids you have?

 

[corduroygt]

For one thing if US companies would end their import-export business for goods and workforce it will mean massive increase in prices in US

The countries that US trades with in significant amounts have the resources to combat the effects of AGW on their own for the most part, so no.

You do realize that big parts of US are running out of water, right?

AGW brings increased precipitation overall but with potential for longer drought periods, so all we need is to store that water and pump it up using electricity we generate from nuclear power plants. US and other developed countries are the least affected from AGW and they can mitigate it for far cheaper than what it'd cost to reduce GHG emissions by a few percent, which wouldn't be much help with the droughts anyway.

How many (grand)kids you have?

They will live in a more technologically advanced and better world than I did, so I am not too concerned about them.

 

[hoho]

The countries that US trades with in significant amounts have the resources to combat the effects of AGW on their own for the most part, so no.

I think you overestimate how well can other countries print money and get away with it. Also, how many states are giving out food stamps and are about to declare bankrupt? That doesn't sound like a country able to cough up enough money to fix problems to me.

For another thing try to imagine what happens once China and Taiwan won't be selling you so much stuff due to their internal demands going high enough and resources being too limited to be able to generate enough leftovers for selling outside the country.

AGW brings increased precipitation overall but with potential for longer drought periods, so all we need is to store that water and pump it up using electricity we generate from nuclear power plants

You don't seem to have any idea how much water is wasted on growing stuff in nearly desert lands like it's being done in big parts of US already. Also, do you know how has the water situation changed in Las Vegas in last few decades?

They will live in a more technologically advanced and better world than I did, so I am not too concerned about them.

Yeah but wouldn't you like it if they don't live under a dome and can actually see plants and animals outside the zoos?

 

[Grall]

Sorry, I meant to say I'd rather have other people drown than have me being forced into mass transport and a small apartment.

You know, that's just sick and weird. Everybody's selfish to varying degrees, but there's fuckin' limits to what's socially acceptable in that regard, and to find people who agree with you (rather see other human beings dead than being minorly inconvenienced), you'd have to go look among god damn madmen.

That's pure trolling tactics, but I don't think you are trolling. Other than your spectacularly self-centric and outright hostile attitude at times on this particular issue you haven't displayed any such traits, so I have to ask if you're nuts. Seriously, because what you say is not a normal thing to say for a person with a balanced healthy mind.

 

[corduroygt]

You know, that's just sick and weird. Everybody's selfish to varying degrees, but there's fuckin' limits to what's socially acceptable in that regard, and to find people who agree with you (rather see other human beings dead than being minorly inconvenienced), you'd have to go look among god damn madmen.

Hundreds and thousands die each day due poor living conditions and not having food, clean water, etc, correct? You can spend less than a dollar a day and save one person in Africa, do you do it? Does anyone here do it? I'd bet most people don't. When the same people say we need to pay trillions in carbon taxes to save them, I can't help but laugh at their hypocrisy. I at least know who I am and don't pretend to care about things that I don't.

The solution to AGW is to be able to produce as much energy we can as cheaply as possible, not reduce our energy usage via taxes. With enough energy, you can do anything and solve any physical issue. Rather than reducing our standards of living, we need to try to improve them, and that's to be done through cheap energy. The way to adapt to Earth's changing climate is through cheap energy.

Fossil fuels are getting expensive, solar/wind are hippie pipe dreams, and the only real solution is nuclear. But the same nutjobs that cry daily about AGW are usually also against that as well, a prime example being Greenpeace, we need a deck of cards for prominent GP members.

 

[Frank]

Hm, I am tempted to respond to some posts, especially the one made by 3dilletante.

But I have decided to decline until you guys discuss the origins of the Sahara desert.