4 ms·

Global warming is a trend that can now, with thirty years of hindsight, be clearly identified. However, many people on both sides made lots of predictions that

Global warming is a trend that can now, with thirty years of hindsight, be clearly identified. However, many people on both sides made lots of predictions that didn't come to pass, so some amount of skepticism towards certain more alarmist claims is warranted. It's too convenient to just lump any skepticism into the "denier" and "bad person" box, and that's exactly what happens. It's also dishonest to point out that the fossil industry has a clear interest, while ignoring that the renewables industry also has such an interest. A lot of business is being made peddling non-solutions to a problem that might actually be unsolvable.

beat 7y ago
It's perfectly fair, however, to point out the difference in economic scale and political influence between the fossil fuel industry and the renewable energy industry. The fossil fuel industry is rather larger, and rather more powerful. And by "rather", I mean "tremendously". It is also perfectly fair to point out the relative likelihood that international political problems around fossil fuels are far more likely to cost the US in blood and treasure than political problems around renewables. We don't go to war for wind and sunshine. Meanwhile, we spent hundreds of billions a year as a nation - not to mention a toll of American military and non-US civilian lives - in order to maintain our semblance of control over flow of oil. You want to be honest? Sure, let's be honest.
- garmaine 7y ago
  The Green New Deal represents a $93 trillion subsidy to renewable energy, if it is enacted. That’s more than comparable.
  - beat 7y ago
    Where are you getting this from? We don't have a Green New Deal. We don't have a firmed-up bill presented in Congress, even. And how is the number you offered calculated, and by whom? Because it reeks of partisanship.
    - garmaine 7y ago
      It’s the only estimate I know of. Here’s a critical look at it: https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/how-much-will-the-green-new-deal-cost/ https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/how-much-will-the-green-ne...
      - beat 7y ago
        Seems to me that link more or less debunks the $93T estimate as partisan bullshit, which is what I expected it to be. To put it in perspective, the GDP of the US is currently about $19T, so they're saying the Green New Deal would cost 100% of the GDP for five straight years. This seems... exaggerated.
        gridlockd 7y ago
        > This seems... exaggerated. Not if you understand MMT and its proponents. AOC believes that every dollar spent by the government on infrastructure magically turns into five dollars of economic growth, so she's willing to go into deep debt to make it happen.
        beat 7y ago
        Now that definitely sounds like partisan nonsense.
        gridlockd 7y ago
        Perhaps, but it's true. AOC is a proponent of MMT[1] and has made that "five dollars for every one dollar spent" argument[2]. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/modern-monetary-theory-mmt-explained-aoc-2019-3?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/modern-monetary-theory-mmt-e... [2] I can't find the source for this one right now, but it was in a video interview regarding the green new deal, right around when it was announced.
        garmaine 7y ago
- gridlockd 7y ago
  One side may have more "bribe money", but the other side has idealism behind it. That goes a long way. Clearly, the climate apocalypse is what dominates the media narrative, so if you want to make money tomorrow (not yesterday), you're pushing renewables, not fossils.

beat 7y ago

It's perfectly fair, however, to point out the difference in economic scale and political influence between the fossil fuel industry and the renewable energy industry. The fossil fuel industry is rather larger, and rather more powerful. And by "rather", I mean "tremendously". It is also perfectly fair to point out the relative likelihood that international political problems around fossil fuels are far more likely to cost the US in blood and treasure than political problems around renewables. We don't go to war for wind and sunshine. Meanwhile, we spent hundreds of billions a year as a nation - not to mention a toll of American military and non-US civilian lives - in order to maintain our semblance of control over flow of oil. You want to be honest? Sure, let's be honest.

garmaine 7y ago
The Green New Deal represents a $93 trillion subsidy to renewable energy, if it is enacted. That’s more than comparable.
- beat 7y ago
  Where are you getting this from? We don't have a Green New Deal. We don't have a firmed-up bill presented in Congress, even. And how is the number you offered calculated, and by whom? Because it reeks of partisanship.
  - garmaine 7y ago
    It’s the only estimate I know of. Here’s a critical look at it: https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/how-much-will-the-green-new-deal-cost/ https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/how-much-will-the-green-ne...
    - beat 7y ago
      Seems to me that link more or less debunks the $93T estimate as partisan bullshit, which is what I expected it to be. To put it in perspective, the GDP of the US is currently about $19T, so they're saying the Green New Deal would cost 100% of the GDP for five straight years. This seems... exaggerated.
      - gridlockd 7y ago
        > This seems... exaggerated. Not if you understand MMT and its proponents. AOC believes that every dollar spent by the government on infrastructure magically turns into five dollars of economic growth, so she's willing to go into deep debt to make it happen.
        beat 7y ago
        Now that definitely sounds like partisan nonsense.
        gridlockd 7y ago
        Perhaps, but it's true. AOC is a proponent of MMT[1] and has made that "five dollars for every one dollar spent" argument[2]. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/modern-monetary-theory-mmt-explained-aoc-2019-3?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/modern-monetary-theory-mmt-e... [2] I can't find the source for this one right now, but it was in a video interview regarding the green new deal, right around when it was announced.
        garmaine 7y ago
gridlockd 7y ago
One side may have more "bribe money", but the other side has idealism behind it. That goes a long way. Clearly, the climate apocalypse is what dominates the media narrative, so if you want to make money tomorrow (not yesterday), you're pushing renewables, not fossils.