5 ms·

The amount of ignorance in this comment is baffling.

esalman 3y ago
Yeah. smh.
flooow 3y ago
It may be ignorant or even insane, but this sort of thinking is also taken seriously in certain places, and even highly rewarded. William Nordhaus won the Nobel Prize for a model which predicts that if the planet warms by 6C - an extinction level event!! - GDP will only be reduced by 8.5%. Why? Because most high-value production happens indoors, where we have aircon. [1] [1] https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2020/sep/nobel-prize-winning-economics-climate-change-misleading-and-dangerous-heres-why https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2020/sep/nobel-prize-winning-econ...
- esalman 3y ago
  I didn't know we have large scale agriculture happening indoors. It's a relief knowing we won't lose our high value productivity due to starvation /s
- gottorf 3y ago
  Why did such a flawed research win him a Nobel Prize? It's not like the Nobel Committee is made up of conservative politicians.
  - flooow 3y ago
    At first I thought this comment was a joke, but I see you made the GP comment so maybe serious (or just a good troll?). In any case, yes, the Nobel Prize committee for Economics is made up of eminent economists, who are indeed probably best thought of as small-c conservative small-p politicians, rather than academics in the tradtional sense.
    - gottorf 3y ago
      It was a serious question, and thank you for your answer. I knew nothing about the composition of the people who award it. I see now that the same Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences that awards the other (hard science) Nobel Prizes also award the Nobel Memorial Prize, and I'll take your word on the views of the composition of that specific committee.
- listenallyall 3y ago
  The article you linked to clearly states in paragraph 1 that the paper in question was published after he won the Nobel Prize.
  - flooow 3y ago
    Yep, but the model I referred to (DICE) had been developed by him (and others) over many years - unsurprisingly, since it's what he won the prize for. More thorough critique: https://mahb.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/The_appallingly_bad_neoclassical_economics_of_clim-1.pdf https://mahb.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/The_app...
    - listenallyall 3y ago
      Quite likely his work over the decades is consistent and builds upon itself, but your initial declaration was rather misleading, he did not win a Nobel Prize for declaring that a 6C increase in temps will result in an 8.5% decline in GDP. Anyway, they gave a Nobel to Al Gore who made some pretty wacky claims that have failed to materialize, so it's not like the Nobel Committee has a spotless track record.
gottorf 3y ago
What's baffling is making energy more expensive and less reliable when all of human development has been about spending more energy per capita at less cost. Those who take climate change seriously should have gone all in on nuclear, but somehow there was enough of an overlap between that group and anti-nuclear activists that it never happened. That's what's truly baffling. More and cheaper energy is quite literally the solution to all of humanity's physical problems. I don't care if the summers get hotter or winters get colder, if we have abundant, cheap, stable, clean energy from nuclear sources. Barring that, abundant, cheap, stable, and regrettably unclean energy from fossil fuels is the second best option. But what some in the developed world has chosen is stasis, degrowth, and decay instead. I may be ignorant, but you don't seem to be offering any viable alternatives to my ignorance.
- mcdonje 3y ago
  >all of human development has been about spending more energy per capita at less cost What? No. That makes no sense. Human development includes a lot of things that have nothing to do with that ridiculous and narrow definition. >Those who take climate change seriously should have gone all in on nuclear, but somehow there was enough of an overlap between that group and anti-nuclear activists that it never happened. That's what's truly baffling. Follow the money: https://atomicinsights.com/how-important-has-oil-money-been-to-antinuclear-movement/ https://atomicinsights.com/how-important-has-oil-money-been-... >Barring [nuclear energy], abundant, cheap, stable, and regrettably unclean energy from fossil fuels is the second best option. What about increasing renewable energy options? What about increasing carbon efficiency by introducing it as a concept into markets via a carbon tax significant enough to drive innovation and behavior change? What about increasing city density and improving subways and trains? What about reducing meat consumption?
  - gottorf 3y ago
    > Human development includes a lot of things that have nothing to do with that ridiculous and narrow definition. What other concept so concisely captures the difference between how our primitive ape ancestors lived, to how cavemen lived, to how the ancient cultures lived, to how we live now? Or how countries at different stages of development now are to each other? The Human Development Index correlates highly with per capita energy expenditure[0]. It's basically a necessary but not sufficient component of human development; otherwise you'd see countries in the lower-right quadrant of that chart. I find it surprising that you have such a strong reaction to this. > Follow the money Of course, Big Oil lobbied for their interests. I'm sure solar executives spend money on lobbying, too. Doesn't mean that the public, especially the interested and motivated public ("those who take climate change seriously"), should have been duped by it. No one is absolving Big Oil for their part in swaying public opinion, but the public should also grow a backbone. > What about [...] They're all good ideas. My point is that good ideas don't happen in a vacuum. Everything carries with it an opportunity cost. "Increasing renewable energy options" isn't something that happens as a result of someone waving a wand; it's accomplished using limited time and resources that could be used elsewhere. So when you implement those ideas by taking away from fossil fuels, you had better make sure that the tradeoff is worth it. > What about increasing city density and improving subways and trains? On this point especially, I'm all for reforming zoning so that cities can become more dense. This would alleviate so many problems in America's highly desirable cities that are laughably sparse compared to other world cities (but of course, the precious "neighborhood character"...). And sure, let's improve transit systems. But how? Take a look at the MTA's budget[1]: only a quarter is paid for by fares, meaning that people who don't use the subway already pay for three-quarters of the MTA. Even pre-pandemic, fares were a little over a third[2]. And this is in the area with the highest transit usage percentage by far out of anywhere in the country; the one place where they should be able to make it work! So it appears that there is already a high degree of subsidization of subways and trains. Given how rapidly the ridership experience is deteriorating in almost all American transit systems, it seems irresponsible to put even more tax dollars in that direction, without first addressing the issues that make people not want to ride them very much. [0]: https://visualizingenergy.org/does-more-energy-use-increase-the-level-of-human-development/ https://visualizingenergy.org/does-more-energy-use-increase-... [1]: http://web.mta.info/budgetdashboard/Budget_Transparencyd.html http://web.mta.info/budgetdashboard/Budget_Transparencyd.htm... [2]: https://new.mta.info/sites/default/files/2019-03/MTA-2019-Adopted-Budget-February-Financial-Plan_2019-2022.pdf https://new.mta.info/sites/default/files/2019-03/MTA-2019-Ad...
anigbrowl 3y ago
It's strategic. Smart people are used to being praised for being smart and hate to look stupid, to the point that it becomes a reflex. It's easy for a cynical actor to frustrate and steal the time of smart people by knowingly asserting counterfactuals or adopting a posture of ignorance. Consider all those influencers and e-celebs whose profits depend on keeping their audience annoyed and in a constant state of outrage. People get addicted to that feeling and pay to be regularly provided with it.

Yeah. smh.

It may be ignorant or even insane, but this sort of thinking is also taken seriously in certain places, and even highly rewarded. William Nordhaus won the Nobel Prize for a model which predicts that if the planet warms by 6C - an extinction level event!! - GDP will only be reduced by 8.5%. Why? Because most high-value production happens indoors, where we have aircon. [1] [1] https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2020/sep/nobel-prize-winning-economics-climate-change-misleading-and-dangerous-heres-why https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2020/sep/nobel-prize-winning-econ...

esalman 3y ago
I didn't know we have large scale agriculture happening indoors. It's a relief knowing we won't lose our high value productivity due to starvation /s
gottorf 3y ago
Why did such a flawed research win him a Nobel Prize? It's not like the Nobel Committee is made up of conservative politicians.
- flooow 3y ago
  At first I thought this comment was a joke, but I see you made the GP comment so maybe serious (or just a good troll?). In any case, yes, the Nobel Prize committee for Economics is made up of eminent economists, who are indeed probably best thought of as small-c conservative small-p politicians, rather than academics in the tradtional sense.
  - gottorf 3y ago
    It was a serious question, and thank you for your answer. I knew nothing about the composition of the people who award it. I see now that the same Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences that awards the other (hard science) Nobel Prizes also award the Nobel Memorial Prize, and I'll take your word on the views of the composition of that specific committee.
listenallyall 3y ago
The article you linked to clearly states in paragraph 1 that the paper in question was published after he won the Nobel Prize.
- flooow 3y ago
  Yep, but the model I referred to (DICE) had been developed by him (and others) over many years - unsurprisingly, since it's what he won the prize for. More thorough critique: https://mahb.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/The_appallingly_bad_neoclassical_economics_of_clim-1.pdf https://mahb.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/The_app...
  - listenallyall 3y ago
    Quite likely his work over the decades is consistent and builds upon itself, but your initial declaration was rather misleading, he did not win a Nobel Prize for declaring that a 6C increase in temps will result in an 8.5% decline in GDP. Anyway, they gave a Nobel to Al Gore who made some pretty wacky claims that have failed to materialize, so it's not like the Nobel Committee has a spotless track record.

gottorf 3y ago

What's baffling is making energy more expensive and less reliable when all of human development has been about spending more energy per capita at less cost. Those who take climate change seriously should have gone all in on nuclear, but somehow there was enough of an overlap between that group and anti-nuclear activists that it never happened. That's what's truly baffling. More and cheaper energy is quite literally the solution to all of humanity's physical problems. I don't care if the summers get hotter or winters get colder, if we have abundant, cheap, stable, clean energy from nuclear sources. Barring that, abundant, cheap, stable, and regrettably unclean energy from fossil fuels is the second best option. But what some in the developed world has chosen is stasis, degrowth, and decay instead. I may be ignorant, but you don't seem to be offering any viable alternatives to my ignorance.

mcdonje 3y ago
>all of human development has been about spending more energy per capita at less cost What? No. That makes no sense. Human development includes a lot of things that have nothing to do with that ridiculous and narrow definition. >Those who take climate change seriously should have gone all in on nuclear, but somehow there was enough of an overlap between that group and anti-nuclear activists that it never happened. That's what's truly baffling. Follow the money: https://atomicinsights.com/how-important-has-oil-money-been-to-antinuclear-movement/ https://atomicinsights.com/how-important-has-oil-money-been-... >Barring [nuclear energy], abundant, cheap, stable, and regrettably unclean energy from fossil fuels is the second best option. What about increasing renewable energy options? What about increasing carbon efficiency by introducing it as a concept into markets via a carbon tax significant enough to drive innovation and behavior change? What about increasing city density and improving subways and trains? What about reducing meat consumption?
- gottorf 3y ago
  > Human development includes a lot of things that have nothing to do with that ridiculous and narrow definition. What other concept so concisely captures the difference between how our primitive ape ancestors lived, to how cavemen lived, to how the ancient cultures lived, to how we live now? Or how countries at different stages of development now are to each other? The Human Development Index correlates highly with per capita energy expenditure[0]. It's basically a necessary but not sufficient component of human development; otherwise you'd see countries in the lower-right quadrant of that chart. I find it surprising that you have such a strong reaction to this. > Follow the money Of course, Big Oil lobbied for their interests. I'm sure solar executives spend money on lobbying, too. Doesn't mean that the public, especially the interested and motivated public ("those who take climate change seriously"), should have been duped by it. No one is absolving Big Oil for their part in swaying public opinion, but the public should also grow a backbone. > What about [...] They're all good ideas. My point is that good ideas don't happen in a vacuum. Everything carries with it an opportunity cost. "Increasing renewable energy options" isn't something that happens as a result of someone waving a wand; it's accomplished using limited time and resources that could be used elsewhere. So when you implement those ideas by taking away from fossil fuels, you had better make sure that the tradeoff is worth it. > What about increasing city density and improving subways and trains? On this point especially, I'm all for reforming zoning so that cities can become more dense. This would alleviate so many problems in America's highly desirable cities that are laughably sparse compared to other world cities (but of course, the precious "neighborhood character"...). And sure, let's improve transit systems. But how? Take a look at the MTA's budget[1]: only a quarter is paid for by fares, meaning that people who don't use the subway already pay for three-quarters of the MTA. Even pre-pandemic, fares were a little over a third[2]. And this is in the area with the highest transit usage percentage by far out of anywhere in the country; the one place where they should be able to make it work! So it appears that there is already a high degree of subsidization of subways and trains. Given how rapidly the ridership experience is deteriorating in almost all American transit systems, it seems irresponsible to put even more tax dollars in that direction, without first addressing the issues that make people not want to ride them very much. [0]: https://visualizingenergy.org/does-more-energy-use-increase-the-level-of-human-development/ https://visualizingenergy.org/does-more-energy-use-increase-... [1]: http://web.mta.info/budgetdashboard/Budget_Transparencyd.html http://web.mta.info/budgetdashboard/Budget_Transparencyd.htm... [2]: https://new.mta.info/sites/default/files/2019-03/MTA-2019-Adopted-Budget-February-Financial-Plan_2019-2022.pdf https://new.mta.info/sites/default/files/2019-03/MTA-2019-Ad...

anigbrowl 3y ago

It's strategic. Smart people are used to being praised for being smart and hate to look stupid, to the point that it becomes a reflex. It's easy for a cynical actor to frustrate and steal the time of smart people by knowingly asserting counterfactuals or adopting a posture of ignorance. Consider all those influencers and e-celebs whose profits depend on keeping their audience annoyed and in a constant state of outrage. People get addicted to that feeling and pay to be regularly provided with it.