PDA

View Full Version : The Economic Argument Against Sitting On Our Hands


bobabode
07-27-2014, 06:36 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-rubin-how-ignoring-climate-change-could-sink-the-us-economy/2014/07/24/b7b4c00c-0df6-11e4-8341-b8072b1e7348_story.html?hpid=z2

"Good economic decisions require good data. And to get good data, we must account for all relevant variables. But we’re not doing this when it comes to climate change — and that means we’re making decisions based on a flawed picture of future risks. While we can’t define future climate-change risks with precision, they should be included in economic policy, fiscal and business decisions because of their potential magnitude.
The scientific community is all but unanimous (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/18/scientists-agree-on-climate-change-so-why-doesnt-everyone-else/)in its agreement that climate change is a serious threat. According to Gallup, nearly 60 percent (http://www.gallup.com/poll/167972/steady-blame-humans-global-warming.aspx)of Americans believe that global warming is caused by human activity. Still, for many people, the effects of climate change seem like a future problem — something that falls by the wayside as we tackle what seem like more immediate crises." Robert Rubin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Rubin

nailer
07-27-2014, 07:31 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-rubin-how-ignoring-climate-change-could-sink-the-us-economy/2014/07/24/b7b4c00c-0df6-11e4-8341-b8072b1e7348_story.html?hpid=z2

"Good economic decisions require good data. And to get good data, we must account for all relevant variables. But we’re not doing this when it comes to climate change — and that means we’re making decisions based on a flawed picture of future risks. While we can’t define future climate-change risks with precision, they should be included in economic policy, fiscal and business decisions because of their potential magnitude.
The scientific community is all but unanimous (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/18/scientists-agree-on-climate-change-so-why-doesnt-everyone-else/)in its agreement that climate change is a serious threat. According to Gallup, nearly 60 percent (http://www.gallup.com/poll/167972/steady-blame-humans-global-warming.aspx)of Americans believe that global warming is caused by human activity. Still, for many people, the effects of climate change seem like a future problem — something that falls by the wayside as we tackle what seem like more immediate crises." Robert Rubin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Rubin

This would be the never popular known unknown variable. Not as difficult as the unknown unknown, but a bear nonetheless.

bobabode
07-27-2014, 08:15 PM
This would be the never popular known unknown variable. Not as difficult as the unknown unknown, but a bear nonetheless.

Wasn't there a study or two by DOD about this? Maybe you can shed some light there Bob?

mpholland
07-27-2014, 09:26 PM
I guess I am in the 40%. I don't believe humans are the cause of global warming. Significant contributors I can go along with, but not the cause. I also don't believe anything our 5% of the worlds population does will alter it significantly for the better unless the rest of the world jumps on board.

Tom Joad
07-28-2014, 08:35 AM
I guess I am in the 40%. I don't believe humans are the cause of global warming. Significant contributors I can go along with, but not the cause. I also don't believe anything our 5% of the worlds population does will alter it significantly for the better unless the rest of the world jumps on board.


I believe the overwhelming majority of scientists.

You know, the people that know a helluva lot more about it than me or you.

I don't know what percent that puts me in.

nailer
07-28-2014, 10:10 AM
Wasn't there a study or two by DOD about this? Maybe you can shed some light there Bob?

I haven't read any DOD documents in almost 7 years (dancing banana). IIRC I never came across one that discussed how Global Warming would impact military operations. I did participate in meetings where the impact of known unknowns on planning was discussed, but I'm unable to name a DOD document that discusses this.

I've no doubt that DOD is at a minimum considering how Global Warming will impact military operations from a long-term perspective. My last report (GAO's report that is) was focused on NORTHCOM's operations and contingency planning, and its ability to execute these plans. We analyzed every plan and none of mine mentioned Global Warming. No one else mentioned that the plans they reviewed touch on this, and if Global Warming had been mentioned we would have talked about it.

piece-itpete
07-28-2014, 11:45 AM
If the sea level is going up I think we need to look at barriers/relocation.

Current models and actual measurable data show that, for now at least, 97% of climate change scientists are wrong.

Pete

nailer
07-28-2014, 12:00 PM
Three 3 percenter's analysis?

Both groups say the same thing: Our models and analyses show we are right.

Tom Joad
07-28-2014, 01:11 PM
If the sea level is going up I think we need to look at barriers/relocation.

Current models and actual measurable data show that, for now at least, 97% of climate change scientists are wrong.

Pete

It's mathematically possible that 97% of the worlds most imminent scientists are wrong and that the 3% that have whored themselves out to big corporate interests are right, but I kinda fucken doubt it.

piece-itpete
07-29-2014, 12:24 PM
The models have been off for 20 years and don't work backwards.

That's 97% of scientists that wrote about human caused global warming, not 97% of all scientists.

Pete

bobabode
07-29-2014, 12:31 PM
The models have been off for 20 years and don't work backwards.

That's 97% of scientists that wrote about human caused global warming, not 97% of all scientists.

Pete

That's climatologists with Phd's after their names not southern fried phrenologists Pete. :rolleyes:

MrPots
07-29-2014, 01:29 PM
I guess I am in the 40%. I don't believe humans are the cause of global warming. Significant contributors I can go along with, but not the cause. I also don't believe anything our 5% of the worlds population does will alter it significantly for the better unless the rest of the world jumps on board.

Someone needs to lead the way :)

Agree though that if China and India don't get on board we're done for.

Wasillaguy
07-29-2014, 01:42 PM
Someone needs to lead the way :)

Agree though that if China and India don't get on board we're done for.

Lead from behind, of course.

MrPots
07-29-2014, 01:47 PM
I think that the fact that much of our manufacturing base moving to China (partially) because of it's lax pollution laws only add scorn to any debate regarding pollution control. That Americans keep buying these products knowing the damage it does both to the environment and labor rights magnifies that scorn.

piece-itpete
07-29-2014, 01:50 PM
Mr Pots I agree, our outsourcing of pollution is practically scandalous. They'll say (the Chinese/Indians etc) we're hypocrites and IMO they're right.

Don't forget final entropy Bob ;)

Pete

Bigerik
07-29-2014, 01:56 PM
Someone needs to lead the way :)

Agree though that if China and India don't get on board we're done for.
Easy to put pressure on them if we are leading the way.

Bigerik
07-29-2014, 01:57 PM
The models have been off for 20 years and don't work backwards.

That's 97% of scientists that wrote about human caused global warming, not 97% of all scientists.

Pete
Huh????

MrPots
07-29-2014, 02:02 PM
And that pressure would be economic shunning.

To do so however we would have to

A) - let loose of our dependence on collecting crap we really don't need

B) - re-build our manufacturing base

C) - decide if we want a strong middle class or two class plutocracy...which is pretty much what we have now..

Tom Joad
07-29-2014, 02:28 PM
The models have been off for 20 years and don't work backwards.

Sure, a lot of science isn't exact.

When I was in grade school I learned that there were 92 elements and that humans had been around for about 50,000 years. But the thing about science is that it is always moving forward and always seeking new knowledge, and willing to change based on those findings.

That sure beats the Hell out of letting people like Rush Limbaugh tell you what to believe.

Tom Joad
07-29-2014, 02:31 PM
our outsourcing of pollution is practically scandalous.

Yeah well that's what your homies in the corporate boardrooms have done for us.

piece-itpete
07-29-2014, 02:39 PM
Check this out: http://rainforests.mongabay.com/09-carbon_emissions.htm

I find this interesting, we remain a nuke powerhouse: http://photos.mongabay.com/09/nuclear_share_1990-2030-568.jpg

And if we stop CO2 right now! Not just the increase but the current output:

http://photos.mongabay.com/09/nuclear_share_1990-2030-568.jpg

Pete

Tom Joad
07-29-2014, 02:39 PM
That's 97% of scientists that wrote about human caused global warming, not 97% of all scientists.

Pete

I see. So you think the ones that are working on finding a cure for cancer think Global Warming is a hoax?

piece-itpete
07-29-2014, 02:47 PM
Sure, a lot of science isn't exact.

When I was in grade school I learned that there were 92 elements and that humans had been around for about 50,000 years. But the thing about science is that it is always moving forward and always seeking new knowledge, and willing to change based on those findings.

That sure beats the Hell out of letting people like Rush Limbaugh tell you what to believe.

I agree. So why take current theory as fact, and ridicule those who are skeptical?

Pete

Tom Joad
07-29-2014, 02:58 PM
I agree. So why take current theory as fact, and ridicule those who are skeptical?

Pete


Because your side has a Monopoly on idiots.

http://i843.photobucket.com/albums/zz359/Dog_of_the_Earth/110614_radio_comp_ap_605.jpg (http://s843.photobucket.com/user/Dog_of_the_Earth/media/110614_radio_comp_ap_605.jpg.html)

Pio1980
07-29-2014, 06:29 PM
Because your side has a Monopoly on idiots.

http://i843.photobucket.com/albums/zz359/Dog_of_the_Earth/110614_radio_comp_ap_605.jpg (http://s843.photobucket.com/user/Dog_of_the_Earth/media/110614_radio_comp_ap_605.jpg.html)

That's part of their problem, the incredible (literally) quality of their implicitly approved spokesfolks. BTW, Where are all the others, Sarah, the Michelles, Ted, ect? The klown kar awaits its regulars.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Tom Joad
07-30-2014, 11:24 AM
I agree. So why take current theory as fact, and ridicule those who are skeptical?

Pete



This guy is on one side of the global warming issue.

http://i843.photobucket.com/albums/zz359/Dog_of_the_Earth/neil-degrasse-tyson.jpg (http://s843.photobucket.com/user/Dog_of_the_Earth/media/neil-degrasse-tyson.jpg.html)

This guy is on the other.

http://i843.photobucket.com/albums/zz359/Dog_of_the_Earth/110614_radio_comp_ap_605-1.jpg (http://s843.photobucket.com/user/Dog_of_the_Earth/media/110614_radio_comp_ap_605-1.jpg.html)

Where do you want to be Pete?

piece-itpete
07-30-2014, 11:34 AM
Kucinich? I like Dr Kaku but when it comes to politics he's a bit nutty. There's Dr Kaczynski too. Or perhaps I should go with LaRouche.

But my choices are a single popular professor or a single popular talk show host. I MUST believe what I'm told.

Pete

Tom Joad
07-30-2014, 11:37 AM
Kucinich? I like Dr Kaku but when it comes to politics he's a bit nutty. There's Dr Kaczynski too. Or perhaps I should go with LaRouche.

But my choices are a single popular professor or a single popular talk show host. I MUST believe what I'm told.

Pete

In other words you're going to side with the fat junior college dropout.

piece-itpete
07-30-2014, 11:47 AM
He should count himself lucky.

Pete

Tom Joad
07-30-2014, 11:50 AM
He should count himself lucky.

Pete

You can run, but you can't hide.

Your side is the stupid side.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlA35y0bGQc

piece-itpete
07-30-2014, 12:12 PM
That's true, now that we're though the ice age everyone was predicting in the 70s it'll be the warm age.

Pete

Tom Joad
07-30-2014, 12:44 PM
That's true, now that we're though the ice age everyone was predicting in the 70s it'll be the warm age.

Pete

The 70's?

Really?

Is that the best you can come up with Pete?

http://i843.photobucket.com/albums/zz359/Dog_of_the_Earth/polyester-in-1970-10.jpg (http://s843.photobucket.com/user/Dog_of_the_Earth/media/polyester-in-1970-10.jpg.html)

piece-itpete
07-30-2014, 12:50 PM
Gaa my eyes! Ain't nobody got time for that TJ! :p

Are you saying you didn't wear tinted aviators and polyester shirts?

Pete

Tom Joad
07-30-2014, 01:14 PM
Are you saying you didn't wear tinted aviators and polyester shirts?

Pete

I was a Nixon voting conservative back in those days.

http://i843.photobucket.com/albums/zz359/Dog_of_the_Earth/1973a.jpg (http://s843.photobucket.com/user/Dog_of_the_Earth/media/1973a.jpg.html)

piece-itpete
07-30-2014, 01:24 PM
Wow :D I was in grade school!

Pass the chicken please.

Pete

nailer
07-30-2014, 01:25 PM
Tricked by Dick, fooled by Ron. :cool:

IIRC Nixon was a moderate.

Dondilion
07-30-2014, 02:38 PM
Tricked by Dick, fooled by Ron. :cool:

IIRC Nixon was a moderate.

Ron did not fool anyone; he said it would trickle down.

That is: just look for a little, if any...you knew what he was about. :D

Tom Joad
07-30-2014, 02:43 PM
IIRC Nixon was a moderate.

I agree.

I'd say Nixon was to the left of Obama.

finnbow
07-30-2014, 03:12 PM
I agree.

I'd say Nixon was to the left of Obama.

Probably true. He created OSHA and the EPA, after all. Beyond that, he cozied up to the Chinese commies.

Tom Joad
07-30-2014, 03:16 PM
Probably true. He created OSHA and the EPA, after all. Beyond that, he cozied up to the Chinese commies.


And how about this:

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/29/nixon_proposed_todays_affordable_care_act_partner/

In February 1974, Republican President Richard Nixon proposed, in essence, today’s Affordable Care Act. Under Nixon’s plan all but the smallest employers would provide insurance to their workers or pay a penalty, an expanded Medicaid-type program would insure the poor, and subsidies would be provided to low-income individuals and small employers. Sound familiar?

Private insurers were delighted with the Nixon plan but Democrats preferred a system based on Social Security and Medicare, and the two sides failed to agree.

Thirty years later a Republican governor, Mitt Romney, made Nixon’s plan the law in Massachusetts. Private insurers couldn’t have been happier although many Democrats in the state had hoped for a public system.

finnbow
07-30-2014, 03:28 PM
And how about this:

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/29/nixon_proposed_todays_affordable_care_act_partner/

It's abundantly clear to me that Obamacare is, at its essence, a conservative approach to health care reform (i.e., the private market on steroids, as it were). The only really liberal approach to health care would be a single-payer system, or something akin to it.

Tom Joad
07-30-2014, 03:43 PM
It's abundantly clear to me that Obamacare is, at its essence, a conservative approach to health care reform (i.e., the private market on steroids, as it were). The only really liberal approach to health care would be a single-payer system, or something akin to it.

I'd settle for this:

http://www.pnhp.org/publications/united-states-national-health-care-act-hr-676

Which is pretty conservative when you compare it to what most of the rest of the world has.