Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.

[Kepler]

Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.

People prefer perceptions. It makes it easier to feel good about yourself, even if in reality you aren't doing much of anything.

As opposed to denying there's a problem. That's much better.

[Bob Gray]

Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.

As opposed to denying there's a problem. That's much better.

Better than creating costly solutions that don't actually solve anything.

[Kepler]

Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.

Better than creating costly solutions that don't actually solve anything.

Arguably it isn't better since it delegitimizes all solutions, not just the bad ones.

At the end of the day it's who are you going to believe: science without a vested interest or business with one. There's really no getting around that.

[Bob Gray]

Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.

Arguably it isn't better since it delegitimizes all solutions, not just the bad ones.

At the end of the day it's who are you going to believe: science without a vested interest or business with one. There's really no getting around that.

Science with no vested interest. Show me what planet you're talking about.

That said, there is no logical progression to be made from the extremely costly measures being proposed to actually solving global warming in a meaningful manner, if you really believe in global warming. So, even if you believe hook, line, and sinker, you're not proposing to actually fix the problem, just dance around the edges a little bit and feel good about yourself, realizing that an actual fix would be far too radical for even most people who fully believe global warming is a problem.

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.

I think that's absolutely true. A lot of the international measures that have been proposed over the last 15 years are more about creating symbolic political victories than about doing anything concrete about climate change.

And most of the people pushing those measures know it. The idea is that getting folks to buy into the concept of mitigation is a necessary first step toward reaching more effective policies later. How much later? Who knows. And who knows if that "start slowly and build from there" dynamic will actually work, anyway? Leaving us stuck with costly measures that don't actually do much of anything. It's one reason why I've always been extremely skeptical of top-down international measures.

But I don't think it's fundamentally a policy problem. And I don't think it's fundamentally a science problem.

Assume that both of those are solved. It's hard to imagine any policy that doesn't, at some level, boil down to short term sacrifice for long term benefit. Anyone familiar with this country's spending habits has all the reason they need to be skeptical that anything will be done. People of almost all political stripes have criticized governmental spending. But it's not just the government - it's also a lot of the people who are doing the complaining. My generation is guilty. My parents' is as well. Probably have to go back to my grandparents...

I imagine there will be widespread popular support for fundamental energy/environment reform at just about the time when the benefits of reform are simultaneous with the costs. GHW Bush's words at the 92 Earth Summit were meant as a rallying cry. But they're actually just a vanilla statement of fact. "The American way of life is not up for negotiation."

[Kepler]

Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.

So, even if you believe hook, line, and sinker, you're not proposing to actually fix the problem, just dance around the edges a little bit and feel good about yourself, realizing that an actual fix would be far too radical for even most people who fully believe global warming is a problem.

You seem to be very committed to this "feel good about yourself" rhetoric. You could as easily argue that the psychological motivation for the Deniers is some "the lone man of truth" over-the-top Randian drag act.

But as to the real point -- is overshooting (if it is overshooting) self-defeating, I'd point you to Negotiation 101. Never start with what you'll settle for -- demand the moon, then the inevitable compromise will get you somewhere that makes a positive difference. You know the folks on the other side are doing the same thing. In fact I'd have to think the polluters know with as much certainty as the scientists the real scope of warming, and Denial is just their opening bid to limit their regulation.

[blockski]

Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.

Of course, the beauty of carbon reduction programs is that there are many benefits beyond just reduced GHG emissions. Decreased dependence on imported oil, on fossil fuels, increased air quality, improved efficiency, etc.

There's a strong financial case to be made here, too.

[Bob Gray]

Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.

You seem to be very committed to this "feel good about yourself" rhetoric. You could as easily argue that the psychological motivation for the Deniers is some "the lone man of truth" over-the-top Randian drag act.

But as to the real point -- is overshooting (if it is overshooting) self-defeating, I'd point you to Negotiation 101. Never start with what you'll settle for -- demand the moon, then the inevitable compromise will get you somewhere that makes a positive difference. You know the folks on the other side are doing the same thing. In fact I'd have to think the polluters know with as much certainty as the scientists the real scope of warming, and Denial is just their opening bid to limit their regulation.

Don't know who the Deniers are.

I'm not talking about negotiation. I'm talking about what these folks actually claim is happening on this planet and what needs to be done to fix it. And they aren't even proposing remotely what is actually needed. I'd have more respect for them if they did. But they propose stuff that in the big picture will make little or no difference in fighting the global climate change they believe is happening. So it's the worst of both worlds. They don't get their climate fixed, yet we damage our economy. But, what they get out of it is they can say they did something.

[Bob Gray]

Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.

Of course, the beauty of carbon reduction programs is that there are many benefits beyond just reduced GHG emissions. Decreased dependence on imported oil, on fossil fuels, increased air quality, improved efficiency, etc.

There's a strong financial case to be made here, too.

Put the Kool-aid down please. Carbon reduction schemes, like cap-and-trade, will slow and damage the economy. To argue otherwise is simply not credible. And we won't impact carbon meaningfully in the world. But, people can feel good, as noted before. Of course as our standard of living crumbles and more and more people lose jobs, feeling good won't feel so good anymore.

[Roy82]

Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.

Put the Kool-aid down please. Carbon reduction schemes, like cap-and-trade, will slow and damage the economy. To argue otherwise is simply not credible. And we won't impact carbon meaningfully in the world. But, people can feel good, as noted before. Of course as our standard of living crumbles and more and more people lose jobs, feeling good won't feel so good anymore.

Then I guess I must be Incredible.

Are we really less better off because in the past we implemented regulation to help ensure clean water, clean air, less destruction of the ozone layer, safer cars? You could just as easily made the same argument before those measures were taken.

Many energy reduction studies have shown that taking steps to energy efficiency have a negative cost - they more than pay for themselves. Measures that encourage people and businesses to take those steps need not be destructive. Heck, I am a flaming green liberal and yet I live in an old house and probably pay twice as much each month in energy than I could if I did some minor upgrading. But I am simply too lazy to do it. Incentivize me.

[Roy82]

Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.

Science with no vested interest. Show me what planet you're talking about.

Earth.

I realize that not all scientists are completely objective but this demonization of science has always stuck me as self-serving and dangerous.

How is the pursuit of knowledge a bad thing? Should we make our decisions based on ignorance or greed? Who could/should provide knowledge if not for the scientists?

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.

Then I guess I must be Incredible.

Are we really less better off because in the past we implemented regulation to help ensure clean water, clean air, less destruction of the ozone layer, safer cars? You could just as easily made the same argument before those measures were taken.

Many energy reduction studies have shown that taking steps to energy efficiency have a negative cost - they more than pay for themselves. Measures that encourage people and businesses to take those steps need not be destructive. Heck, I am a flaming green liberal and yet I live in an old house and probably pay twice as much each month in energy than I could if I did some minor upgrading. But I am simply too lazy to do it. Incentivize me.

That's hogwash. Unless you live in a mesh house with the AC on all day, most of these measures take a decade or more to pay for themselves. THat's not to say they aren't a good thing if you want to do them as an individual.

A typical business won't spend capital on anything unless it pays for itself within 3-5 years. A typical homeowner stays in their house for no more than seven years before moving. I'd put the payback threshold at five years max for a homeowner for it to make sense (unless they know with high certainty they will be there longer).

[huskyfan]

Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.

Earth.

I realize that not all scientists are completely objective but this demonization of science has always stuck me as self-serving and dangerous.

How is the pursuit of knowledge a bad thing? Should we make our decisions based on ignorance or greed? Who could/should provide knowledge if not for the scientists?

pursuit of knowledge is never a bad thing. trouble was the warmists wouldn't pursue knowledge. they said the science was settled. and anyone who opposed their view was an idiotic, Hilter-like moron.

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.

pursuit of knowledge is never a bad thing. trouble was the warmists wouldn't pursue knowledge. they said the science was settled. and anyone who opposed their view was an idiotic, Hilter-like moron.

Sweeping generalization, meet sweeping generalization.

This kind of talk doesn't help anyone.

[Foxton]

Re: Global Warming -- 4th Edition: Carbonated Planet.

Sweeping generalization, meet sweeping generalization.

This kind of talk doesn't help anyone.

Sure it does, just not the people who should be helped.