6 ms·

We did not simply make "behavioral choices". Whole swathes of humanity were ordered indoors! It was achieved at untold cost (actually, much greater than the tri

by rmk 6y ago

We did not simply make "behavioral choices". Whole swathes of humanity were ordered indoors! It was achieved at untold cost (actually, much greater than the trillions of dollars that have been given away already by governments) that will be paid by generations to come. Only people who were lucky to hold a job that wasn't affected made a conscious decision to cut down. I am willing to bet that come 2022 or so, emissions will rebound and exceed peaks as people 'catch up' on travel, including simply visiting near and dear ones, that they have missed out on.

hcurtiss 6y ago
And watching so many small businesses in my small town close, that was not at all a thing I hope climate change policy replicates.
- rmk 6y ago
  One can wish, but I know that there is huge pressure on the current administration to appease the left wing of the party. Keystone XL is canceled, and the US has rejoined the Paris agreement on the first day of Biden's Presidency. A multi-trillion dollar Green New Deal that will further saddle future generations with debt is looking likely at this point. Whether it will provide the benefits it purports to do is far from certain.
  - huragok 6y ago
    Trillions used for the GND is debt but trillions sunk into tax cuts for the top 1% is just good economics.
    - splintercell 6y ago
      Unironically, yes. Remember tax cuts isn't money just given away, the 1% didn't cause the spending part of the equation. You just think 1% should pay that tab.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        Taxation also doesn't reduce spending, often it causes more spending to occur than if it wasn't taxed.
    - rmk 6y ago
      Incurring debt != Foregoing revenue via income tax
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        It's actually pretty much the same. As long as the government programs you are funding aren't too wasteful - and if they are the solution is to fix the waste - incurring sovereign debt is not that much different from foregoing revenue. The difference is that if you forego revenue from the top 1% you get worse outcomes than if you tax them or cut useful government spending or print debt.
      - JoBrad 6y ago
        They have the same outcome, though, relative to future debts. Isn't this a distinction without a difference?
        rmk 6y ago
        Once you incur debt, it must be serviced. If you forego revenue via a couple of channels (income tax, inheritance tax), you can either (a) raise debt to replace the revenue you lost or (b) provide incentives so that the revenue foregone is invested (efficiently and judiciously) to spur growth, which brings in revenue or (c) raise revenue via other channels. You can do some combination of the above. The point being, you have fewer options at hand once you incur debt, because default has dire consequences (ask Russia or Argentina), and printing money also has less desirable consequences (indiscriminate tax on everyone including those on fixed incomes and savers).
      - marcosdumay 6y ago
        Huh? Obviously they are different things, one is consequence of the other.
      - eli_gottlieb 6y ago
        Money is fungible, actually.
bamboozled 6y ago
> Whole swathes of humanity were ordered indoors! It was achieved at untold cost Climate change has untold cost too, so what you’re saying doesn’t have much weight.
- rayiner 6y ago
  No, climate change has costs that we can estimate and base our decisions on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impacts_of_climate_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impacts_of_climate_ch... The foregone economic activity in just one year of lockdowns in the US is a significant fraction of cumulative worldwide damages anticipated from climate change through 2050.
  - baron_harkonnen 6y ago
    I have never read any serious research that proposes what you are proposing: that climate mitigation is going to cost more than the consequences of failing to mitigate it. We're on the path to a 4C world by something like 2100. An increase by that much might possibly wipe out the species. If it fall short of that forecast the damage will be far greater. Not to mention that pandemic shares the same root cause as climate change. Destroying our ecosystem has increased the incident of zoonotic spillover. We'll see more pandemics as we continue on this path. And the costs of these are not separate from the costs of climate change.
    - rayiner 6y ago
      > We're on the path to a 4C world by something like 2100. An increase by that much might possibly wipe out the species. That is absolutely not what scientists and economists are predicting. An RCP 8.5 scenario (which is considered on the worse side of what's likely in a "do nothing" world) is expected to knock 6.7-14.3% of US GDP by 2100: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/20191025_ES_THP_Environmental_Facts_FINAL.pdf https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2019102... (p. 7). That would be about half as bad as the COVID lockdowns (but permanent): https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/30/us-gdp-q2-2020-first-reading.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/30/us-gdp-q2-2020-first-reading.... Note that's a 14.3% hit compared to what GDP would be in 2100. That's a big impact. It's equivalent to going from 3% annual GDP growth between then and now to 2.7% annual GDP growth. Now, the numbers hide some really terrible costs. The Florida and Gulf coast will become uninhabitable, destroying half the economy in those areas. To put it into perspective the 2018 California wildfires cost 0.75% of GDP. So this is like 20 times worse. It's bad! But it's not an "untold cost." It's not an outcome worth spending any amount to avoid. Scientists don't think mitigation will cost more than the damages from climate change, because scientists aren't proposing to mitigate climate change by shutting down the economy the way we did during the COIVD lockdown. That's an insanely inefficient way to achieve mitigation. I mentioned the economic loss from COVID lockdown not to suggest that is actually how we would reduce emissions, but to put into perspective what the expected costs of climate change are. Saying that climate change will have "untold cost" is problematic because it makes you believe that mitigation strategies that will have massive costs will be justified to avoid climate change damages. It's worth the U.S. spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year on climate-change mitigation. The EU is planning on spending 260 billion euro annually by 2030. That's roughly the scale of Biden's plan. But the "World War II-style" mobilization of the economy that Green New Deal advocates want will hurt economic growth by more than climate change will. If we go from 3% annual GDP growth to 2% annually we'll shoot ourselves in the foot.
roenxi 6y ago
> ...that will be paid by generations to come... I think the lockdowns could be revealed as a costly mistake and there is a great hubris among the well off in thinking that because they aren't struggling everything is fine. But this is particular argument is unsustainable. A lockdown can have generations of consequences - what doesn't? - but it cannot be paid for by generations to come. It was paid for now, resources were reallocated and consumed. The risk is more subtle. If a group of people develop who have nothing to lose, then they lose nothing by being very violent and destroying stuff. Physical destruction of assets is something that can cause long-term damage. The lockdowns take away options from people who don't have many.
- rmk 6y ago
  I'm talking about the debt incurred by the Government in order to provide assistance to the unemployed and the businesses that were struggling. Trillions of dollars of debt (in addition to 20-30 trillion dollar debt already incurred) is not something that one generation can manage.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    I'd guessed. Lets say they wait one generation then just say "nah, we're not paying. Just ignore that debt". Who loses? Did the losers deserve to win? These are tricky questions. There isn't a reason to think that the US taxpayer is going to pay back their debts (in real terms). The numbers have gotten large enough relative to GDP that they aren't realistically going to honour those promises. It may get ugly, but that debt isn't going to last generations.
    - rmk 6y ago
      As I have argued elsewhere in this thread, default or monetizing the debt has consequences, including permanently higher borrowing costs that will exact a heavy price from future generations if they choose to go those routes. That's what history teaches us. The biggest loser will be the (US) general public, because it holds the majority of the debt. Foreign adversaries (such as China) hold a much lower percentage of the debt (and USD-denominated instruments).
baron_harkonnen 6y ago
> It was achieved at untold cost This is just evidence of what we already know: our current society is unsustainable. > will be paid by generations to come I think you're pretty optimistic about how the future will develop given that we have not only just demonstrated our society is unsustainable, but that we are not capable of making serious progress towards a sustainable society. Large portions of are planet are soon to become uninhabitable by humans. Major disruptions in our food supply are likely not that far off. The idea that we need to get back to "business as usual" means these things are all the more certain.
- 29athrowaway 6y ago
  In ecological terms, we are an invasive species without a predator multiplying exponentially. We either accept reality and live and adapt to the limits imposed by nature or prepare to live in permanent war for resources.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    Humans tend to stop multiplying exponentially, though.
    - Retric 6y ago
      So do rats with abundant food in an enclosed environment, it doesn’t end well. https://www.gwern.net/docs/sociology/1962-calhoun.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/sociology/1962-calhoun.pdf Which isn’t to say the same rules apply to humans, but it’s also critical to get this right.
      - saagarjha 6y ago
        I think that most modern countries are doing a reasonable job.
        29athrowaway 6y ago
        No, they are not. They are not treating the problem as the emergency that it is. Wasteful consumerism is legal everywhere.
dustinmoris 6y ago
The most effective way to cut emissions for a family is to have ({desired amount of children} - 1) children. Maybe if we would have let nature claim that 1%-2% of obese unfit greedy consumers then we could have achieved a more sustainable reduction of CO2.

by rmk 6y ago

hcurtiss 6y ago

And watching so many small businesses in my small town close, that was not at all a thing I hope climate change policy replicates.

rmk 6y ago
One can wish, but I know that there is huge pressure on the current administration to appease the left wing of the party. Keystone XL is canceled, and the US has rejoined the Paris agreement on the first day of Biden's Presidency. A multi-trillion dollar Green New Deal that will further saddle future generations with debt is looking likely at this point. Whether it will provide the benefits it purports to do is far from certain.
- huragok 6y ago
  Trillions used for the GND is debt but trillions sunk into tax cuts for the top 1% is just good economics.
  - splintercell 6y ago
    Unironically, yes. Remember tax cuts isn't money just given away, the 1% didn't cause the spending part of the equation. You just think 1% should pay that tab.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Taxation also doesn't reduce spending, often it causes more spending to occur than if it wasn't taxed.
  - rmk 6y ago
    Incurring debt != Foregoing revenue via income tax
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      It's actually pretty much the same. As long as the government programs you are funding aren't too wasteful - and if they are the solution is to fix the waste - incurring sovereign debt is not that much different from foregoing revenue. The difference is that if you forego revenue from the top 1% you get worse outcomes than if you tax them or cut useful government spending or print debt.
    - JoBrad 6y ago
      They have the same outcome, though, relative to future debts. Isn't this a distinction without a difference?
      - rmk 6y ago
        Once you incur debt, it must be serviced. If you forego revenue via a couple of channels (income tax, inheritance tax), you can either (a) raise debt to replace the revenue you lost or (b) provide incentives so that the revenue foregone is invested (efficiently and judiciously) to spur growth, which brings in revenue or (c) raise revenue via other channels. You can do some combination of the above. The point being, you have fewer options at hand once you incur debt, because default has dire consequences (ask Russia or Argentina), and printing money also has less desirable consequences (indiscriminate tax on everyone including those on fixed incomes and savers).
    - marcosdumay 6y ago
      Huh? Obviously they are different things, one is consequence of the other.
    - eli_gottlieb 6y ago
      Money is fungible, actually.

bamboozled 6y ago

> Whole swathes of humanity were ordered indoors! It was achieved at untold cost Climate change has untold cost too, so what you’re saying doesn’t have much weight.

rayiner 6y ago
No, climate change has costs that we can estimate and base our decisions on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impacts_of_climate_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impacts_of_climate_ch... The foregone economic activity in just one year of lockdowns in the US is a significant fraction of cumulative worldwide damages anticipated from climate change through 2050.
- baron_harkonnen 6y ago
  I have never read any serious research that proposes what you are proposing: that climate mitigation is going to cost more than the consequences of failing to mitigate it. We're on the path to a 4C world by something like 2100. An increase by that much might possibly wipe out the species. If it fall short of that forecast the damage will be far greater. Not to mention that pandemic shares the same root cause as climate change. Destroying our ecosystem has increased the incident of zoonotic spillover. We'll see more pandemics as we continue on this path. And the costs of these are not separate from the costs of climate change.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    > We're on the path to a 4C world by something like 2100. An increase by that much might possibly wipe out the species. That is absolutely not what scientists and economists are predicting. An RCP 8.5 scenario (which is considered on the worse side of what's likely in a "do nothing" world) is expected to knock 6.7-14.3% of US GDP by 2100: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/20191025_ES_THP_Environmental_Facts_FINAL.pdf https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2019102... (p. 7). That would be about half as bad as the COVID lockdowns (but permanent): https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/30/us-gdp-q2-2020-first-reading.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/30/us-gdp-q2-2020-first-reading.... Note that's a 14.3% hit compared to what GDP would be in 2100. That's a big impact. It's equivalent to going from 3% annual GDP growth between then and now to 2.7% annual GDP growth. Now, the numbers hide some really terrible costs. The Florida and Gulf coast will become uninhabitable, destroying half the economy in those areas. To put it into perspective the 2018 California wildfires cost 0.75% of GDP. So this is like 20 times worse. It's bad! But it's not an "untold cost." It's not an outcome worth spending any amount to avoid. Scientists don't think mitigation will cost more than the damages from climate change, because scientists aren't proposing to mitigate climate change by shutting down the economy the way we did during the COIVD lockdown. That's an insanely inefficient way to achieve mitigation. I mentioned the economic loss from COVID lockdown not to suggest that is actually how we would reduce emissions, but to put into perspective what the expected costs of climate change are. Saying that climate change will have "untold cost" is problematic because it makes you believe that mitigation strategies that will have massive costs will be justified to avoid climate change damages. It's worth the U.S. spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year on climate-change mitigation. The EU is planning on spending 260 billion euro annually by 2030. That's roughly the scale of Biden's plan. But the "World War II-style" mobilization of the economy that Green New Deal advocates want will hurt economic growth by more than climate change will. If we go from 3% annual GDP growth to 2% annually we'll shoot ourselves in the foot.

roenxi 6y ago

> ...that will be paid by generations to come... I think the lockdowns could be revealed as a costly mistake and there is a great hubris among the well off in thinking that because they aren't struggling everything is fine. But this is particular argument is unsustainable. A lockdown can have generations of consequences - what doesn't? - but it cannot be paid for by generations to come. It was paid for now, resources were reallocated and consumed. The risk is more subtle. If a group of people develop who have nothing to lose, then they lose nothing by being very violent and destroying stuff. Physical destruction of assets is something that can cause long-term damage. The lockdowns take away options from people who don't have many.

rmk 6y ago
I'm talking about the debt incurred by the Government in order to provide assistance to the unemployed and the businesses that were struggling. Trillions of dollars of debt (in addition to 20-30 trillion dollar debt already incurred) is not something that one generation can manage.
- roenxi 6y ago
  I'd guessed. Lets say they wait one generation then just say "nah, we're not paying. Just ignore that debt". Who loses? Did the losers deserve to win? These are tricky questions. There isn't a reason to think that the US taxpayer is going to pay back their debts (in real terms). The numbers have gotten large enough relative to GDP that they aren't realistically going to honour those promises. It may get ugly, but that debt isn't going to last generations.
  - rmk 6y ago
    As I have argued elsewhere in this thread, default or monetizing the debt has consequences, including permanently higher borrowing costs that will exact a heavy price from future generations if they choose to go those routes. That's what history teaches us. The biggest loser will be the (US) general public, because it holds the majority of the debt. Foreign adversaries (such as China) hold a much lower percentage of the debt (and USD-denominated instruments).

baron_harkonnen 6y ago

> It was achieved at untold cost This is just evidence of what we already know: our current society is unsustainable. > will be paid by generations to come I think you're pretty optimistic about how the future will develop given that we have not only just demonstrated our society is unsustainable, but that we are not capable of making serious progress towards a sustainable society. Large portions of are planet are soon to become uninhabitable by humans. Major disruptions in our food supply are likely not that far off. The idea that we need to get back to "business as usual" means these things are all the more certain.

29athrowaway 6y ago
In ecological terms, we are an invasive species without a predator multiplying exponentially. We either accept reality and live and adapt to the limits imposed by nature or prepare to live in permanent war for resources.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  Humans tend to stop multiplying exponentially, though.
  - Retric 6y ago
    So do rats with abundant food in an enclosed environment, it doesn’t end well. https://www.gwern.net/docs/sociology/1962-calhoun.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/sociology/1962-calhoun.pdf Which isn’t to say the same rules apply to humans, but it’s also critical to get this right.
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      I think that most modern countries are doing a reasonable job.
      - 29athrowaway 6y ago
        No, they are not. They are not treating the problem as the emergency that it is. Wasteful consumerism is legal everywhere.

dustinmoris 6y ago

The most effective way to cut emissions for a family is to have ({desired amount of children} - 1) children. Maybe if we would have let nature claim that 1%-2% of obese unfit greedy consumers then we could have achieved a more sustainable reduction of CO2.