4 ms·

I’m sorry, but what kind of hole (or bubble, to use a more popular term) have you been living in the last decade? There are a studies like the one you are reque

by Ma8ee 5y ago

I’m sorry, but what kind of hole (or bubble, to use a more popular term) have you been living in the last decade? There are a studies like the one you are requesting coming out regularly. Unfortunately, they can’t tell you exactly how many dollars different policies will cost, but that is due to the nature of the subject, not because of any faults of the studies. But the conclusions are unanimous: it’s going to cost much more to do something today than it would have cost yesterday, and it’s going to be much more expensive tomorrow. The poor are the ones that will be hardest hit, not because they can’t afford AC, but because its their food that won’t grow when there’s no rain or too much rain, and they can’t move. Science is currently speaking loud and clear: do much more than is currently planned, or we are facing centuries of wildfires, floods, storms, food and water shortages and hundreds of millions of refugees trying to find new futures. And this is not alarmist. This is what climate scientists, like Cassandras, have been shouting about for decades. I’ve met a few like you, who think they represent the voice of balance and reason. But you are the ones that still are haggling over the price of buckets while the fire breaks through the roof of the orphanage.

adam_arthur 5y ago
Exactly the hand-wavey and vague language I describe. Nowhere do you quantify the cost of this. Saying there will be floods or wildfires is not meaningful discussion. We've had those throughout all of recorded history. How much worse will those things get? What is the economic cost? Just saying climate change is bad because X, Y, Z danger and not quantifying the actual impact with numbers is simply a discussion of hysterics. There's an endless list of bad things in the world, and logically we should address them from most impactful to least impactful. So where is the math justifying policy X with economic cost Y? And as I said in my comment, yes studies have been done. Where is that in political discourse? To the average American, addressing climate change will have effectively no impact on their livelihood within their lifetime. Economic consequences will have an immediate impact. That's simply a fact. Will it get hotter by a few degrees with some knock on effects? Yes. But very little actual impact on day to day life. It becomes obvious to see why many people will vote against these policies. If you can describe to somebody how it will meaningfully adversely affect their life, you will get more support. Hence why I suggest using numbers rather than "scare language" when discussing.
- Ma8ee 5y ago
  Here you go: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/ It’s the report from 2014, the updated one will come next year. It’s a few thousand pages, but still just a summary of thousands of academic studies. You can go to each individual paper if you want exact confidence interval for each study. Climate change is already impacting the average American with wildfires, drought, more hurricanes and floods. Costs of insurance in many areas and homes that are no longer possible to insure. And for the political discourse. Just fucking google it! It’s everywhere. There are countless studies and articles and discussions that are easy to find.
  - adam_arthur 5y ago
    Exactly as I said, studies have been done. So where is that bubbling into discourse? Saying wildfires and floods, in a hand-wavey sense, makes you sound quite uninformed and doesn't inspire much call to action. You have to connect the direct costs and benefits to the individual if you ever want to persuade somebody. So can you explain to the voter in Michigan why raising gas by 50 cents is worth policy X? Just as an example. The truth is that if you work out the math, it's unlikely to be very persuasive at all, because most negative ramifications of climate change will only be felt far in the future while costs to mitigate are immediate. But the whole discussion around policy is meaningless. The obvious solution to global warming is to make alternative energy more cost effective than fossil fuels. Then people will switch to it without any compulsion simply due to the economics being more favorable. For example, the majority of people will likely switch to electric cars once they're cheaper than gas cars (accounting for both up front and lifetime costs). We don't need legislation forcing people to buy electric, they will do it on their own within the next 10-15 years. Similar with solar. At least as of a few years ago, solar on houses was a lousy investment from a cost perspective. As solar becomes more efficient, it starts to be more sensible, and in fact, even obvious to do. By some measures the equilibrium point between fossils and renewable will happen relatively soon... Though there are some domains like aviation where it will take longer. Policy should be aimed towards pushing renewables to be more cost competitive than fossils. And I don't mean through fiat or subsidy, but through improve d efficiency. e.g. Better developed grid makes solar on housing more cost effective by allowing consumer to sell excess back to grid

by Ma8ee 5y ago

adam_arthur 5y ago

Exactly the hand-wavey and vague language I describe. Nowhere do you quantify the cost of this. Saying there will be floods or wildfires is not meaningful discussion. We've had those throughout all of recorded history. How much worse will those things get? What is the economic cost? Just saying climate change is bad because X, Y, Z danger and not quantifying the actual impact with numbers is simply a discussion of hysterics. There's an endless list of bad things in the world, and logically we should address them from most impactful to least impactful. So where is the math justifying policy X with economic cost Y? And as I said in my comment, yes studies have been done. Where is that in political discourse? To the average American, addressing climate change will have effectively no impact on their livelihood within their lifetime. Economic consequences will have an immediate impact. That's simply a fact. Will it get hotter by a few degrees with some knock on effects? Yes. But very little actual impact on day to day life. It becomes obvious to see why many people will vote against these policies. If you can describe to somebody how it will meaningfully adversely affect their life, you will get more support. Hence why I suggest using numbers rather than "scare language" when discussing.

Ma8ee 5y ago
Here you go: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/ It’s the report from 2014, the updated one will come next year. It’s a few thousand pages, but still just a summary of thousands of academic studies. You can go to each individual paper if you want exact confidence interval for each study. Climate change is already impacting the average American with wildfires, drought, more hurricanes and floods. Costs of insurance in many areas and homes that are no longer possible to insure. And for the political discourse. Just fucking google it! It’s everywhere. There are countless studies and articles and discussions that are easy to find.
- adam_arthur 5y ago
  Exactly as I said, studies have been done. So where is that bubbling into discourse? Saying wildfires and floods, in a hand-wavey sense, makes you sound quite uninformed and doesn't inspire much call to action. You have to connect the direct costs and benefits to the individual if you ever want to persuade somebody. So can you explain to the voter in Michigan why raising gas by 50 cents is worth policy X? Just as an example. The truth is that if you work out the math, it's unlikely to be very persuasive at all, because most negative ramifications of climate change will only be felt far in the future while costs to mitigate are immediate. But the whole discussion around policy is meaningless. The obvious solution to global warming is to make alternative energy more cost effective than fossil fuels. Then people will switch to it without any compulsion simply due to the economics being more favorable. For example, the majority of people will likely switch to electric cars once they're cheaper than gas cars (accounting for both up front and lifetime costs). We don't need legislation forcing people to buy electric, they will do it on their own within the next 10-15 years. Similar with solar. At least as of a few years ago, solar on houses was a lousy investment from a cost perspective. As solar becomes more efficient, it starts to be more sensible, and in fact, even obvious to do. By some measures the equilibrium point between fossils and renewable will happen relatively soon... Though there are some domains like aviation where it will take longer. Policy should be aimed towards pushing renewables to be more cost competitive than fossils. And I don't mean through fiat or subsidy, but through improve d efficiency. e.g. Better developed grid makes solar on housing more cost effective by allowing consumer to sell excess back to grid