3 ms·

> What's the downside to "believing" in climate science, though? Let's say it's all a hoax. The way I see it, the worst thing is funds are diverted for things t

> What's the downside to "believing" in climate science, though? Let's say it's all a hoax. The way I see it, the worst thing is funds are diverted for things that don't help us that much. The "green new deal" is estimated to cost between $50 and $100 trillion over ten years. The current US budget is about $4.5 trillion per year. What else could the US government do with between 100% and 200% of the current budget? How about end poverty, build the best education system in the world, land on Mars, develop fusion energy to solve the upcoming energy crisis, develop desalination technology to solve the upcoming water crisis, or cure some of the most deadly diseases around today? The cost to getting climate change wrong is massive in both directions.

oblio 7y ago
> How about end poverty, build the best education system in the world, land on Mars, develop fusion energy to solve the upcoming energy crisis, develop desalination technology to solve the upcoming water crisis, or cure some of the most deadly diseases around today? Well, some of the things you list are at least partially related to climate change. For example desalination technologies looks a lot like stuff you'd need if fresh water became scarce. Fusion energy would also be environmentally-friendly, landing on Mars could be a decent plan B for humanity or at least a way of off-loading some of that economic activity elsewhere. The bits about poverty, education and curing diseases seem to be quite independent from any climate science thing... I forgot to mention something, climate science is not a US-specific thing. Everyone is taking a stance and therefore betting on something. If these bets are not hedged, those who bet on the losing side will be absolutely crushed economically by those who bet on the winning side.
- will4274 7y ago
  Barely. Upcoming water and energy crises are primarily because of rising standards of living. If our climate woes were non-existent, those problems would remain.
SubiculumCode 7y ago
The green new deal is often described as being just about climate, but it is not, and its costs are not. There is a lot of infrastructure etc spending. Think of it as an omnibus bill.
Frondo 7y ago
Rather amazingly, the $93 trillion dollar price tag seems to be a function of right-wing think tank groupthink. Some right-wing think tank came up with the number, and you can see it cited on mises.org, the Washington Examiner, Fox Business, and a wide variety of other right-leaning outlets, all citing the original right-wing calculation uncritically. Seems somewhat apropos on a discussion thread about groupthink that such a figure, given its provenance, would come up.
- will4274 7y ago
  The proponents of the plan refuse to estimate it's cost. I don't think it's unreasonable or unexpected to use opponent's estimates when they are the only estimates available. The (left-leaning) website factcheck.org notes that the green new deal is likely to incorporate a Medicare-for-all program with a pricetag around $36 trillion, so the order of magnitude is at least correct. So, I think your "groupthink" descriptor is a off base. I'd also note that you didn't respond to the substance of my comment (seriously - replace the $50 to $100 trillion in my comment with $20 trillion - does it make a difference to my argument??) but instead frothed at a widely cited estimate without providing another estimate that you saw as more reliable.

oblio 7y ago

> How about end poverty, build the best education system in the world, land on Mars, develop fusion energy to solve the upcoming energy crisis, develop desalination technology to solve the upcoming water crisis, or cure some of the most deadly diseases around today? Well, some of the things you list are at least partially related to climate change. For example desalination technologies looks a lot like stuff you'd need if fresh water became scarce. Fusion energy would also be environmentally-friendly, landing on Mars could be a decent plan B for humanity or at least a way of off-loading some of that economic activity elsewhere. The bits about poverty, education and curing diseases seem to be quite independent from any climate science thing... I forgot to mention something, climate science is not a US-specific thing. Everyone is taking a stance and therefore betting on something. If these bets are not hedged, those who bet on the losing side will be absolutely crushed economically by those who bet on the winning side.

will4274 7y ago
Barely. Upcoming water and energy crises are primarily because of rising standards of living. If our climate woes were non-existent, those problems would remain.

SubiculumCode 7y ago

The green new deal is often described as being just about climate, but it is not, and its costs are not. There is a lot of infrastructure etc spending. Think of it as an omnibus bill.

Frondo 7y ago

Rather amazingly, the $93 trillion dollar price tag seems to be a function of right-wing think tank groupthink. Some right-wing think tank came up with the number, and you can see it cited on mises.org, the Washington Examiner, Fox Business, and a wide variety of other right-leaning outlets, all citing the original right-wing calculation uncritically. Seems somewhat apropos on a discussion thread about groupthink that such a figure, given its provenance, would come up.

will4274 7y ago
The proponents of the plan refuse to estimate it's cost. I don't think it's unreasonable or unexpected to use opponent's estimates when they are the only estimates available. The (left-leaning) website factcheck.org notes that the green new deal is likely to incorporate a Medicare-for-all program with a pricetag around $36 trillion, so the order of magnitude is at least correct. So, I think your "groupthink" descriptor is a off base. I'd also note that you didn't respond to the substance of my comment (seriously - replace the $50 to $100 trillion in my comment with $20 trillion - does it make a difference to my argument??) but instead frothed at a widely cited estimate without providing another estimate that you saw as more reliable.