3 ms·

It is worthwhile to note that by 2010 the GAO estimated over 100billion in total federal dollars on climate spending[1]. This number doesn't include other natio

It is worthwhile to note that by 2010 the GAO estimated over 100billion in total federal dollars on climate spending[1]. This number doesn't include other nation's spending, or private spending. By contrast, Skylab's entire program cost was about 10 billion in 2010 dollars. It's naive to think bureaucratic inertia is not a problem in climate change. In other words, it is not free of one of the problems the War on Poverty and War on Drugs saw: that they became industries focused on preserving themselves rather than ever fixing the problems they were meant to. Whenever we spend our own money to fix problems that affect us, we consider the opportunity costs carefully. But when the collection plate is passed to us and we want to demonstrate virtue, our money is given into the hands of people who have a reward system that is not ideally suited to using it altruistically. Is more money going to solve the climate crisis? Is there a better way, such as political reform? If not, I'd just like to be honest about how many manned missions to Mars we are passing up on to instead pay for this. I know people say that "people will die from climate change," but people are dying. We have people even here in the USA without access to clean drinking water, basic healthcare, or safe neighborhoods to live in. Around the globe people die from malnutrition while the world produces a surplus of food. People don't die in 2017 because of a lack of tech or resources, they die because of politics and greed, or maybe even from one of the 26,000 bombs we dropped last year. 1-https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarming-cost-of-climate-change-hysteria/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarmi... 2-https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab

icebraining 9y ago
> Whenever we spend our own money to fix problems that affect us, we consider the opportunity costs carefully. But when the collection plate is passed to us and we want to demonstrate virtue, our money is given into the hands of people who have a reward system that is not ideally suited to using it altruistically. Yeap. As usual, Yes Minister explains the political process to a T: - This money is voted solely to make sick people better. - No, no, no, Minister. It is to make everybody better. Better for having shown the extent of their care and compassion. You see, when money is allocated to the Health or Social Services, Parliament and the country feel... cleansed. Purified. Absolved. It is a sacrifice. After the sacrifice, nobody asks the priest what happened to the ritual offering after the ceremony. https://youtu.be/U01oual9ysQ?t=13m23s https://youtu.be/U01oual9ysQ?t=13m23s
hwillis 9y ago
That article is incredibly selective. For instance, the conclusion of the GAO investigation recommended that that level of spending was far too LITTLE. From their 2017 high risk report[1]: "For example, the Department of Defense's (DOD) 2010 and 2014 Quadrennial Defense Reviews state that climate change poses risks to defense infrastructure, particularly on the coasts. DOD's infrastructure consists of more than 555,000 defense facilities and 28 million acres of land, with a replacement value of close to $850 billion." Climate change is not some experiment for the virtue of learned knowledge. It's a management effort. The immediate costs far outweigh our spending, much less the future costs. [1]: http://www.gao.gov/highrisk/limiting_federal_government_fiscal_exposure/why_did_study#t=0 http://www.gao.gov/highrisk/limiting_federal_government_fisc...
losteric 9y ago
Climate change is a mind-bogglingly large-scale problem. We've known that for decades, fossil fuels was energy expenditures that accrued debt for short-term growth... it's not going to be cheap to fix. Actual wars are a better place to look - the US has been spending an average of $300B/y on war in the Middle East for a cause that kills next to no one. Cut backs on war would more than pay for all our healthcare, space exploration, and climate change needs.
- wallace_f 9y ago
  I agree that our wars need to be either cut back or shut down. If you're interested, Rand Paul is actually putting up a fight in the senate for that right now.

icebraining 9y ago

> Whenever we spend our own money to fix problems that affect us, we consider the opportunity costs carefully. But when the collection plate is passed to us and we want to demonstrate virtue, our money is given into the hands of people who have a reward system that is not ideally suited to using it altruistically. Yeap. As usual, Yes Minister explains the political process to a T: - This money is voted solely to make sick people better. - No, no, no, Minister. It is to make everybody better. Better for having shown the extent of their care and compassion. You see, when money is allocated to the Health or Social Services, Parliament and the country feel... cleansed. Purified. Absolved. It is a sacrifice. After the sacrifice, nobody asks the priest what happened to the ritual offering after the ceremony. https://youtu.be/U01oual9ysQ?t=13m23s https://youtu.be/U01oual9ysQ?t=13m23s

hwillis 9y ago

That article is incredibly selective. For instance, the conclusion of the GAO investigation recommended that that level of spending was far too LITTLE. From their 2017 high risk report[1]: "For example, the Department of Defense's (DOD) 2010 and 2014 Quadrennial Defense Reviews state that climate change poses risks to defense infrastructure, particularly on the coasts. DOD's infrastructure consists of more than 555,000 defense facilities and 28 million acres of land, with a replacement value of close to $850 billion." Climate change is not some experiment for the virtue of learned knowledge. It's a management effort. The immediate costs far outweigh our spending, much less the future costs. [1]: http://www.gao.gov/highrisk/limiting_federal_government_fiscal_exposure/why_did_study#t=0 http://www.gao.gov/highrisk/limiting_federal_government_fisc...

losteric 9y ago

Climate change is a mind-bogglingly large-scale problem. We've known that for decades, fossil fuels was energy expenditures that accrued debt for short-term growth... it's not going to be cheap to fix. Actual wars are a better place to look - the US has been spending an average of $300B/y on war in the Middle East for a cause that kills next to no one. Cut backs on war would more than pay for all our healthcare, space exploration, and climate change needs.

wallace_f 9y ago
I agree that our wars need to be either cut back or shut down. If you're interested, Rand Paul is actually putting up a fight in the senate for that right now.