PDA

View Full Version : World's Climate Screwed, Obama Not The Savior


Lyle
07-18-2009, 03:23 PM
World Climate Screwed, Obama Is Not the Savior:

http://reason.com/news/show/134832.html

pampl
07-18-2009, 03:43 PM
I find it pathetic how people who normally advocate a muscular approach to foreign policy curl up into little balls and start sucking their thumbs over global warming talks. China already does more to curb emissions that most Western powers. Trying to pretend that it's some intractable, implacable foe to the polar ice caps is just sad.

JonIrenicus
07-18-2009, 08:28 PM
World Climate Screwed, Obama Is Not the Savior:

http://reason.com/news/show/134832.html

This statement right here in that article


But this psychologizing only exposes the inability of climate activists to take seriously the rational case for inaction. In fact, there is a perfectly good reason developing countries are unwilling to act on climate change: What they are being asked to do is more awful than climate change's implications--even if one accepts all the alarmist predictions.


Is the killshot to the whole argument. And it will remain the killshot to radical economic transformations to curbing emissions for countries who do not have the luxury of being fools, where the costs, even with hte worst of the predictions, are infinitely higher and more devastating if they went along.

pampl
07-18-2009, 09:03 PM
This statement right here in that article


But this psychologizing only exposes the inability of climate activists to take seriously the rational case for inaction. In fact, there is a perfectly good reason developing countries are unwilling to act on climate change: What they are being asked to do is more awful than climate change's implications--even if one accepts all the alarmist predictions.


Is the killshot to the whole argument. And it will remain the killshot to radical economic transformations to curbing emissions for countries who do not have the luxury of being fools, where the costs, even with hte worst of the predictions, are infinitely higher and more devastating if they went along.
When you say stuff as ignorant as this you make it really obvious you have no idea what you're talking about. First, because India and China ARE trying to curb emissions, and ARE adopting clean technology. Second, because the worst of predictions - or even the sunnier predictions - all show a much, much higher cost for inaction than for action. I don't know whether the author of that article is stupid or dishonest - given it's Reason, I'd bet on dishonest - but your complete willingness to buy any falsehood that strokes your ego instead of spending one second doing research makes you look really, really gullible.

JonIrenicus
07-18-2009, 10:22 PM
When you say stuff as ignorant as this you make it really obvious you have no idea what you're talking about. First, because India and China ARE trying to curb emissions, and ARE adopting clean technology. Second, because the worst of predictions - or even the sunnier predictions - all show a much, much higher cost for inaction than for action. I don't know whether the author of that article is stupid or dishonest - given it's Reason, I'd bet on dishonest - but your complete willingness to buy any falsehood that strokes your ego instead of spending one second doing research makes you look really, really gullible.


I am sure India and China are trying to curb some of their emissions, that tends to happen as nations get wealthier, they want to live with cleaner air like the rest of us.

Now tell me, do they want to curb emissions to such an extent that they retard their growth and development?


Should the Indian government scale back the adoption of cars? However little a gasoline engine may pollute, it still pollutes, do you think Indians want FEWER cars or more families to have cars?

Do you think China wants fewer power plants or more power plants? Fewer Chinese living the more modern life, or more of them?

These things take more power, infrustructure, transportation, and even if all the cars were powered by flowers like some hippies seem to think they should be in 3 years, the trucking fleets needed to haul freight will burn diesel for some time to come, and shipments with a growing population of wealthier chinese necessitates MORE of all that, not less.


Saying they want these things in a cleaner form does not negate the fact that first and foremost, they want it. And in the near future, that means in increase in pollution, not a lowering.


If you want the developing world to skip the dirty stage, provide cheaper cleaner options. Without subsidy.

Lyle
07-19-2009, 12:52 AM
Amen.

The audacity of doing nothing.

Starwatcher162536
07-19-2009, 02:24 AM
I love how the right holds up the free markets in such high esteem, except for if we are talking about renewables and climate change.

The hope is, with lots of R&D, and with the gov't forcing the market to meet certain performance criteria, that solutions will be relatively painless compared to what the uncontrolled climate changes would be

Lyle
07-19-2009, 07:41 AM
What will uncontrolled climate change cost though? How do we know it will cost exactly what you say it will cost?

Do you think China and India should stop growing economically? Do you think Africans should always be poor and be without air condition? Could you live without air condition in College Station, Texas? What about the octogenarians in College Station, should we turn their ac off?

I'm being daft, but the truth is serious change isn't going to be happening in the near future. Technological innovation probably is the best hope in the long term.

pampl
07-19-2009, 12:23 PM
Now tell me, do they want to curb emissions to such an extent that they retard their growth and development?
This is a stupidly phrased question, but yes.

Saying they want these things in a cleaner form does not negate the fact that first and foremost, they want it. And in the near future, that means in increase in pollution, not a lowering.
And yet they're planning a lowering of pollution. It's almost as if you have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about. Maybe you should take one second to learn something instead of writing out ten lines of complete nonsense that's supposed to look insightful.

JonIrenicus
07-19-2009, 02:58 PM
This is a stupidly phrased question, but yes.

And yet they're planning a lowering of pollution. It's almost as if you have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about. Maybe you should take one second to learn something instead of writing out ten lines of complete nonsense that's supposed to look insightful.


And you think this says something special? With the air quality and water quality in China no one is surprised they would want to and actually be trying to curb pollution.

You want a cookie for that statement?

That is not the point, they are not going to impose California level emission restrictions, it is an issue of degree and scale.


I swear, double speak and sloppy understanding of rhetoric abounds, its like when Obama says green energy will create new jobs. Which I am sure it will. But he did not say Additional jobs, or a net increase in jobs. Now that may happen eventually, but that is NOT what he claimed, he is precise in his rhetoric, even if he fools his sycophants into thinking he said something else entirely.


Do not be naive, the targets wanted by environmental groups will not be set by China or India, they cannot afford THOSE targets, the cost for them would be too high, that is the point.

JonIrenicus
07-19-2009, 03:10 PM
What will uncontrolled climate change cost though? How do we know it will cost exactly what you say it will cost?

Do you think China and India should stop growing economically? Do you think Africans should always be poor and be without air condition? Could you live without air condition in College Station, Texas? What about the octogenarians in College Station, should we turn their ac off?

I'm being daft, but the truth is serious change isn't going to be happening in the near future. Technological innovation probably is the best hope in the long term.

They minimize the cost argument and net gain argument precisely because it undercuts their argument for engaging in radical sweeping economic changes.

So instead of giving the counter argument its full weight and consideration, better to dismiss it or minimize it.

That does not mean unchecked pollution has no cost, or that in MANY cases the cost of doing nothing clearly outweighs the cost of action to clean it up. But such a view is the default for many who have elevated the implications of climate change to religious standing. There can only be one possible result of not doing X, we know this for a certainty, and we know it will be This bad, and there is never a rationale reason for not doing X amount like western nations do. What is reasonable for us is reasonable for all, makes EXACTLY the same sense for all, no matter the cost to developing societies.

Starwatcher162536
07-19-2009, 07:10 PM
I have never advocated putting emission caps on developing nations, as I feel those of us living at a higher standard of living have no right to tell people living at a lower standard of living to further lower their already meager resources.

We (the industrial world) should probably take emission standards on ourselves, as the market will be needed to sort out the winners from losers from what all the R&D gives us. Hopefully, this will give solutions that the rest of the world can adopt that have low costs.

pampl
07-19-2009, 07:57 PM
And you think this says something special? With the air quality and water quality in China no one is surprised they would want to and actually be trying to curb pollution.
You should be surprised because it directly contradicts your earlier misinformed BS.

Do not be naive, the targets wanted by environmental groups will not be set by China or India, they cannot afford THOSE targets, the cost for them would be too high, that is the point.
Look, JI, you can't really call anyone naive when you go out and believe whatever retarded Southpark-style argument that makes you feel savvy. You have no idea what the cost would be, or if it's too high. You have no idea about any of this. You also have no apparent interest in learning a single thing about it so you can't pretend you're less ignorant than someone who's never even heard of global warming.

JonIrenicus
07-19-2009, 11:58 PM
You should be surprised because it directly contradicts your earlier misinformed BS.

Look, JI, you can't really call anyone naive when you go out and believe whatever retarded Southpark-style argument that makes you feel savvy. You have no idea what the cost would be, or if it's too high. You have no idea about any of this. You also have no apparent interest in learning a single thing about it so you can't pretend you're less ignorant than someone who's never even heard of global warming.

Here you are partly right. I do not know how high or low the costs would be, but from what I have read and heard and see in terms of actions, I do not believe developing nations will stick to similar standards the US might go for.

http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=india+emissions


Balk all you like, come back to me when we all agree on a common standard or even something modestly similar. I do not know the details of why that Indian minister is not willing to agree to certain targets, but the reason almost certainly involves cost, benefits gained weighed against benefits lost. And while you certainly think I am not versed enough on their situation to judge whether or not that was a reasonable decision, I raise you ten fold that minister is a hell of alot more knowledgeable and versed with the details of the situation than you are.


The more reasonable people do not want or expect them to stick to the same standards, have SOME capacity in their minds to take something else into account other than emissions/climate change uber alles.

pampl
07-20-2009, 12:49 AM
Here you are partly right. I do not know how high or low the costs would be, but from what I have read and heard and see in terms of actions, I do not believe developing nations will stick to similar standards the US might go for.

http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=india+emissions


Balk all you like, come back to me when we all agree on a common standard or even something modestly similar. I do not know the details of why that Indian minister is not willing to agree to certain targets, but the reason almost certainly involves cost, benefits gained weighed against benefits lost. And while you certainly think I am not versed enough on their situation to judge whether or not that was a reasonable decision, I raise you ten fold that minister is a hell of alot more knowledgeable and versed with the details of the situation than you are.


The more reasonable people do not want or expect them to stick to the same standards, have SOME capacity in their minds to take something else into account other than emissions/climate change uber alles.

I agree that developing nations won't agree to the standards other nations initially offer in part one of the bargaining. That they haven't accepted is not reason to conclude, as the article's author does, that it's hopeless. You're also right that India's enviroment minister is doubtless many times more informed than I. That's why his presence at these negotiations makes it so clear that he's there to barter not that he lacks interest in climate change reform.

I don't care what unreasonable people expect climate change legislation to look like. I think you've demonstrated the ability to be reasonable which is why I find it so frustrating that you seem to accept the author's unreasonable perspective on these negotiations. If there are people who expect China and India to be completely acquiescent in these negotiations then I apologize for sharing their political affiliation but I don't think you should consider them significant political actors worthy of reaction

Lyle
07-20-2009, 03:43 AM
Starwatcher,

Can you clarify what you meant by conservatives having high esteem for free markets, but not when it comes to climate change?

Starwatcher162536
07-27-2009, 10:03 AM
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090708/full/460158a.html