3 ms·

Why do you think it is nonsense? What would it take to convince you it's not?

by drsopp 3y ago

briandear 3y ago
Assuming Nature is correct that climate change costs just under 1% of GDP[1] in terms of extreme weather event costs. As an exercise, let’s double it to 2% of GDP. Now, given that climate mitigation is projected to cost 1-7% of GDP [2]. Economically, trying to “solve” the climate costs as much or more than it saves. It also results in a lower quality of life. For example, people not using their air conditioners because of high energy costs, or people spending 10 hours on a train rather than 2 hours on an airplane, or people being coaxed to eat insects rather than steak. Not to mention high energy costs which impact the poorest people disproportionally more than they do for the Al Gores of the world. It would seem that in terms of worldwide health, that reducing actual pollution (particulates, poisons in water, chemicals in food, carcinogens, etc.) would have a far greater positive impact on the world than trying to fight temperatures. I wholehearted support reducing environmental toxins and improving our seemingly poisoned food supply. All of this is assuming that human-derived CO2 is having a material effect on temperature, which is extremely hard to prove to a strong enough degree to warrant literally changing the entire world’s economy. During the lockdowns, California roads were almost empty. Air travel was significantly reduced worldwide, Industrial output was severely curtailed. This was true in many places across the world and yet, was there even a single degree of temperature difference? Was there even a tenth of degree effect? If shutting down the economy didn’t affect temperatures, then covering the landscape with windmills and solar panels is going to do even less. Driving up energy and transportation costs when even a near shutdown of the world economy didn’t change anything seems to be foolish. Taxing “carbon” is ridiculous. Literally everything is carbon. A tax on carbon is a tax on life itself. We might as well tax breathing. Which probably is the goal. Make breathing more expensive so fewer people choose to do it. It’s dystopian and this whole discussion in not dissimilar to the “settled science” of eugenics 100 years ago. “Science,” celebrities, and popular politicians of the day were all convinced that Eugenics would save humanity. Hitler took that idea to its natural extreme which made people realize that Eugenics wasn’t all that great when it meant that you were next in the gas chamber. “Science” was convinced on their Covid theories. The six foot social distancing was made up [4], natural immunity was ignored [5], and masks didn’t do anything, and school closures were a disaster. The “vaccine” was a joke (the first vaccine in history that made you more likely to get the disease it was supposed to prevent.) Remember when the lab leak theory wasn’t just criticized, but even sharing the theory would get you banned on social media? Yet a virus that started in a town where they had a lab doing gain of function research on viruses just like the Covid virus — it was apparently completely ridiculous to conclude that the virus came from that lab? Two weeks to flatten the curve? Really? If we got Covid so wrong despite “Science” and politicians being so sure and the pundits being so convinced that closing beaches and telling people to stay inside to day drink was safer than people going outside in the fresh air.. then is it too crazy to suspect that these same “experts” are probably wrong about other “Science” as well? Fool me once.. I’m convinced that climate policy isn’t about climate. But about an attempt to redistribute wealth and control society. [3] So yes, for many of us, this is nonsense. 1. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41888-1#:~:text=Climate%20change%2Dattributed%20economic%20costs%20from%20extreme%20weather%20events%20vary,annually%20over%20the%20study%20period https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41888-1#:~:text=C.... 2. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44168-023-00041-w#:~:text=Total%20costs%20of%20global%20climate,1a https://www.nature.com/articles/s44168-023-00041-w#:~:text=T...). 3. https://www.lemonde.fr/en/opinion/article/2022/11/05/thomas-piketty-it-is-impossible-to-seriously-fight-climate-change-without-a-profound-redistribution-of-wealth_6003038_23.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/opinion/article/2022/11/05/thomas-... 4. https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/572926-gottlieb-nobody-knows-where-six-foot-distancing-recommendation/amp/ https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/572926-gottli... 5. https://disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/nih-scientist-testifies-government https://disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/nih-scientist...
- oldpersonintx 3y ago
  [dead]
- stavros 3y ago
  > Taxing “carbon” is ridiculous. Literally everything is carbon. A tax on carbon is a tax on life itself. This is complete nonsense, to the point where I don't think it's worth reading the rest of the comment, if it's the sort of comment that takes a word out of context and then attacks that straw man.
- gruez 3y ago
  >Taxing “carbon” is ridiculous. Literally everything is carbon. A tax on carbon is a tax on life itself. We might as well tax breathing. Which probably is the goal. Make breathing more expensive so fewer people choose to do it. It’s dystopian and this whole discussion in not dissimilar to the “settled science” of eugenics 100 years ago. “Science,” celebrities, and popular politicians of the day were all convinced that Eugenics would save humanity. Hitler took that idea to its natural extreme which made people realize that Eugenics wasn’t all that great when it meant that you were next in the gas chamber. The fact that you admit that anthropogenic global warming is real (ie. human activity is causing more co2 to be released, co2 causes warming, warming is causing negative effects throughout the globe, at least to the effect of 1% of GDP) suggests that at least on the surface that taxing carbon makes sense. If you're generating externality by burning fossil fuels, and some poor bangladeshi half way across the world is paying for it due to flooding and/or poor yields, why shouldn't that activity be taxed/discouraged? The rest of your comment goes into conspiracy/slippery slope territory. The current proposals for taxing industrial carbon emissions is a far cry from "tax[ing] breathing".

Why do you think it is nonsense? What would it take to convince you it's not?

by drsopp 3y ago

Why do you think it is nonsense? What would it take to convince you it's not?

Assuming Nature is correct that climate change costs just under 1% of GDP[1] in terms of extreme weather event costs. As an exercise, let’s double it to 2% of GDP. Now, given that climate mitigation is projected to cost 1-7% of GDP [2]. Economically, trying to “solve” the climate costs as much or more than it saves. It also results in a lower quality of life. For example, people not using their air conditioners because of high energy costs, or people spending 10 hours on a train rather than 2 hours on an airplane, or people being coaxed to eat insects rather than steak. Not to mention high energy costs which impact the poorest people disproportionally more than they do for the Al Gores of the world. It would seem that in terms of worldwide health, that reducing actual pollution (particulates, poisons in water, chemicals in food, carcinogens, etc.) would have a far greater positive impact on the world than trying to fight temperatures. I wholehearted support reducing environmental toxins and improving our seemingly poisoned food supply. All of this is assuming that human-derived CO2 is having a material effect on temperature, which is extremely hard to prove to a strong enough degree to warrant literally changing the entire world’s economy. During the lockdowns, California roads were almost empty. Air travel was significantly reduced worldwide, Industrial output was severely curtailed. This was true in many places across the world and yet, was there even a single degree of temperature difference? Was there even a tenth of degree effect? If shutting down the economy didn’t affect temperatures, then covering the landscape with windmills and solar panels is going to do even less. Driving up energy and transportation costs when even a near shutdown of the world economy didn’t change anything seems to be foolish. Taxing “carbon” is ridiculous. Literally everything is carbon. A tax on carbon is a tax on life itself. We might as well tax breathing. Which probably is the goal. Make breathing more expensive so fewer people choose to do it. It’s dystopian and this whole discussion in not dissimilar to the “settled science” of eugenics 100 years ago. “Science,” celebrities, and popular politicians of the day were all convinced that Eugenics would save humanity. Hitler took that idea to its natural extreme which made people realize that Eugenics wasn’t all that great when it meant that you were next in the gas chamber. “Science” was convinced on their Covid theories. The six foot social distancing was made up [4], natural immunity was ignored [5], and masks didn’t do anything, and school closures were a disaster. The “vaccine” was a joke (the first vaccine in history that made you more likely to get the disease it was supposed to prevent.) Remember when the lab leak theory wasn’t just criticized, but even sharing the theory would get you banned on social media? Yet a virus that started in a town where they had a lab doing gain of function research on viruses just like the Covid virus — it was apparently completely ridiculous to conclude that the virus came from that lab? Two weeks to flatten the curve? Really? If we got Covid so wrong despite “Science” and politicians being so sure and the pundits being so convinced that closing beaches and telling people to stay inside to day drink was safer than people going outside in the fresh air.. then is it too crazy to suspect that these same “experts” are probably wrong about other “Science” as well? Fool me once.. I’m convinced that climate policy isn’t about climate. But about an attempt to redistribute wealth and control society. [3] So yes, for many of us, this is nonsense. 1. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41888-1#:~:text=Climate%20change%2Dattributed%20economic%20costs%20from%20extreme%20weather%20events%20vary,annually%20over%20the%20study%20period https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41888-1#:~:text=C.... 2. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44168-023-00041-w#:~:text=Total%20costs%20of%20global%20climate,1a https://www.nature.com/articles/s44168-023-00041-w#:~:text=T...). 3. https://www.lemonde.fr/en/opinion/article/2022/11/05/thomas-piketty-it-is-impossible-to-seriously-fight-climate-change-without-a-profound-redistribution-of-wealth_6003038_23.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/opinion/article/2022/11/05/thomas-... 4. https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/572926-gottlieb-nobody-knows-where-six-foot-distancing-recommendation/amp/ https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/572926-gottli... 5. https://disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/nih-scientist-testifies-government https://disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/nih-scientist...

oldpersonintx 3y ago
[dead]
stavros 3y ago
> Taxing “carbon” is ridiculous. Literally everything is carbon. A tax on carbon is a tax on life itself. This is complete nonsense, to the point where I don't think it's worth reading the rest of the comment, if it's the sort of comment that takes a word out of context and then attacks that straw man.
gruez 3y ago
>Taxing “carbon” is ridiculous. Literally everything is carbon. A tax on carbon is a tax on life itself. We might as well tax breathing. Which probably is the goal. Make breathing more expensive so fewer people choose to do it. It’s dystopian and this whole discussion in not dissimilar to the “settled science” of eugenics 100 years ago. “Science,” celebrities, and popular politicians of the day were all convinced that Eugenics would save humanity. Hitler took that idea to its natural extreme which made people realize that Eugenics wasn’t all that great when it meant that you were next in the gas chamber. The fact that you admit that anthropogenic global warming is real (ie. human activity is causing more co2 to be released, co2 causes warming, warming is causing negative effects throughout the globe, at least to the effect of 1% of GDP) suggests that at least on the surface that taxing carbon makes sense. If you're generating externality by burning fossil fuels, and some poor bangladeshi half way across the world is paying for it due to flooding and/or poor yields, why shouldn't that activity be taxed/discouraged? The rest of your comment goes into conspiracy/slippery slope territory. The current proposals for taxing industrial carbon emissions is a far cry from "tax[ing] breathing".