Next NASA Chief Nominee Doesn’t Believe in Climate Change

[chrisch]

Except there are huge downsides to the methods of cutting "fossil C02" as has been proposed.

Proposed by whom? I see very little downside at all to the cutting of fossil CO2.

That is exactly the problem.

No the problem is the huge vested interests in digging up and burning fossil fuel for short term financial gain by people who don't care about anyone else.

In fact, the costs as a whole (in eliminating C02 completely) are so great that they can accurately be described as catastrophic.

Why? What costs? Why do you think that switching over to renewable energy is going to cost anything at all never mind a "catastrophic" cost? Cost to whom?

So, blindly ignoring the reality and marching on with "cut all c02" is not a safe course of action.

Why? How is it not safe? What reality?

Doing nothing may not be safe either. However we don't know that for sure because the science is far from cut and dry on the topic. .

The science is cut and dry. It's as sure as night follows day. Keep pumping fossil CO2 into the atmosphere and you will kill millions of people and screw up the planet for the next generation. For sure we can argue about how much CO2 is needed and how long it will take - that is the debate that is going on in the scientific world. The feedback loops from things like the melting permafrost giving off methane make it hard to really nail down the figures to decimal point accuracy. Perhaps the consensus is wrong and we are 30 years away or maybe 50 years away or maybe 2 years away even. I am very comfortable with a debate about the speed of the inevitable because that really is hard to predict. Where we are going and why are already settled.

 

[Storker]

'carbon credits' (more new taxes!),

Those taxes aren't necessarily fiscally motivated. Ever heard of Pigovian taxes? They are a tool to place the real societal cost of pollution with the polluters.

 

[kelemvor]

Proposed by whom? I see very little downside at all to the cutting of fossil CO2.



No the problem is the huge vested interests in digging up and burning fossil fuel for short term financial gain by people who don't care about anyone else.




Why? What costs? Why do you think that switching over to renewable energy is going to cost anything at all never mind a "catastrophic" cost? Cost to whom?



Why? How is it not safe? What reality?

Pertinent reading. Paris Agreement - Wikipedia

The science is cut and dry. It's as sure as night follows day. Keep pumping fossil CO2 into the atmosphere and you will kill millions of people and screw up the planet for the next generation. For sure we can argue about how much CO2 is needed and how long it will take - that is the debate that is going on in the scientific world. The feedback loops from things like the melting permafrost giving off methane make it hard to really nail down the figures to decimal point accuracy. Perhaps the consensus is wrong and we are 30 years away or maybe 50 years away or maybe 2 years away even. I am very comfortable with a debate about the speed of the inevitable because that really is hard to predict. Where we are going and why are already settled.

The scientists who published their major study recently which I linked up-thread (twice, actually) seem to disagree with you. There is even a handy analysis of the study written by someone with a better understanding of the science than you or I. Maybe you should contact them and convince them they are wrong. I'll concede that I don't personally know you, maybe you do know better than the climate scientists who did the work.

The latest revision put 2c at something closer to 100 years, and doubled the variance in allowable C02 to get there. The allowed variance is so huge that it's not the least bit unreasonable to think that their timeframe is... likely to be updated.. repeatedly, and potentially drastically.

It's not a non-issue but in my mind there are several more pressing issues. Not the least of which are our country's current financial woes mentioned by @drrich2.

 

[Storker]

in my mind there are several more pressing issues. Not the least of which are our country's current financial woes mentioned by @drrich2.

We in the industrialised world are being out-competed by poorer countries. To some extent because we have to limit our emissions, so our industry has to build waste treatment plants. And we have to give our workers decent working conditions, including decent work safety. Those things mean increased CapEx and increased OpEx. Even disregarding labor cost, it's more expensive to produce something here compared to e.g. in China. This isn't proper capitalism, since the market actors don't compete on an even field. Some of those taxes you sceptics deniers bitch about are Pigovian, intended to level the playing field.

It's not libertarianism, but IMNSHO it's definitely capitalism. Of the good type: Healthy competition between players on a fairly even field

 

[drrich2]

Those taxes aren't necessarily fiscally motivated. Ever heard of Pigovian taxes? They are a tool to place the real societal cost of pollution with the polluters.

Interesting concept. From the Wikipedia link you provided:

"A Pigovian tax (also spelled Pigouvian tax) is a tax levied on any market activity that generates negative externalities (costs not internalized in the market price). The tax is intended to correct an inefficient market outcome, and does so by being set equal to the social cost of the negative externalities."

There's more, but that's enough to start. With CO2 generation, we don't know what 'value' to set the CO2 generation at. And what happens to the taxes collected?

Quite some years ago in the U.S., a number of states got together and basically robbed 'Big Tobacco' for a massive amount of money. At my current age, I recall being taught in a public school class at least 40 years ago that smoking is bad for you, with an attempt to indoctrinate us into nagging our parents against it. I recall picking health problems related to smoking for a term paper in high school; I'm now in my late 40's. Point is, we've known a LONG time smoking has serious adverse health consequences, yet those states basically accused Big Tobacco of suppressing the truth and won themselves an enormous financial windfall.

You might think that money would've gone to fund hospitals, clinics and education efforts that deal with the sequelae of smoking or educate the public to discourage use.

I believe the bottom line is only a very small fraction of the money was used in such a way. For practical purposes, the states just won the lottery.

We cannot trust the United States government where money is concerned. It's tragic but true. I'm not so sure we can trust other governments, either. Not sure where that leaves us...

Richard.

 

[Storker]

You might think that money would've gone to fund hospitals, clinics and education efforts that deal with the sequelae of smoking or educate the public to discourage use.

The point of a Pigovian tax isn't where the money ends up. That's irrelevant to the tax's purpose. The only point is to even the field. If a factory builds a wastewater treatment plant because it's cheaper than paying the pollution fee, then the tax has worked as intended. Regardless of how the fee has been spent (even if it was spent paying for a new diamond bracelet for the dictator's mistress)

 

[kelemvor]

The point of a Pigovian tax isn't where the money ends up. That's irrelevant to the tax's purpose. The only point is to even the field. If a factory builds a wastewater treatment plant because it's cheaper than paying the pollution fee, then the tax has worked as intended. Regardless of how the fee has been spent (even if it was spent paying for a new diamond bracelet for the dictator's mistress)

So it's a lot like a tarriff, except levied on domestic businesses rather than international ones? For instance, not long ago there was talk here about a tariff on Chinese solar panels to encourage domestic buyers to buy American panels. I have no idea if it actually came into existence, but I remember reading about the idea. I think I remember something similar going on with Chinese steel or Wood or some such being imported to the states.

I *think* I understand it. But I can't say that I like it. It's a little more shady than just making a law that says "you can or can't do this thing in this way". Shady because it's a little easier to put a law through the rigors of our system of checks and balances than a tax. Your country may do things differently.

If you don't want factories to produce smoke from smokestacks, you create a law that says they cannot. The only reason I can see to use the "tax" method of control is either to benefit from the money (rather than actually change behavior) or to avoid the system of checks and balances in order to meet your desires.

Of all the things that the world needs, more shady stuff going on in politics is not among them.

 

[Storker]

If you don't want factories to produce smoke from smokestacks, you create a law that says they cannot.

And if they don't give a crap, whaddayado? You either ignore them, or you fine them. The fine is - in practice - Pigovian. Because if it isn't high enough to make it more cost-effective to clean the smoke rather than just not give a damn, the company just pays the fine and continues to pollute.

 

[kelemvor]

And if they don't give a crap, whaddayado? You either ignore them, or you fine them. The fine is - in practice - Pigovian. Because if it isn't high enough to make it more cost-effective to clean the smoke rather than just not give a damn, the company just pays the fine and continues to pollute.

The right answer is simple. You prosecute and if appropriate, fine or incarcerate the executives. I know, it rarely happens. That too is a problem. I don't think it's a great idea to fix one obvious problem with another obvious problem.

 

[Storker]

The right answer is simple. You prosecute and if appropriate, fine or incarcerate the executives.

A fine is much easier to push through the legal system than a jail sentence. You can easily fine a company for transgressing, it's a lot harder to prove sufficient personal responsibility to incarcerate an executive